Maria Woodbury has called hundreds of voters in Maine since March to talk about making same-sex marriage legal. Some hang up, others say they’re too busy. One man, who said he grew up as a Catholic, stuck out.
While the nephew he’s raising alongside his two teen-aged sons is gay, the man said he “strongly opposed” revising the law when they began talking last week, Woodbury said in an interview. Within 15 minutes, he had changed his mind.
“By the end of the conversation, he really wanted all his boys to have the same opportunities when they found the right person and wanted to marry,” said Woodbury, 31, an outreach worker for a coalition of gay-marriage supporters.
Advocates such as Woodbury are looking to gauge support for same-sex marriage among voters, who shot down a law permitting the practice in 2009. If they do get a measure on the November ballot and it passes, Maine would be the first U.S. state where gays win the right to wed directly from the public. Court rulings or legislation led to the change in the six states and the District of Columbia where it has occurred.
At least five other states are tackling the issue this year. Lawmakers in New Jersey, Washington and Maryland plan to push legislation to make same-sex marriage legal, while voters in North Carolina and Minnesota will be asked to bar the practice through constitutional amendments.
A majority of Americans favored making the practice legal in 2011, with 53 percent supporting it compared with 44 percent a year earlier, a Gallup poll showed in May. Political independents and Democrats accounted for the change as Republicans’ views hadn’t budged, Gallup said.
Supporters of an effort to put the issue before Pine Tree State voters again, led by EqualityMaine in Portland, plan to announce on Jan. 23 whether they will submit signatures needed to place the question on the ballot, said Betsy Smith, executive director of the nonprofit organization. Smith said they have almost twice as many as needed to qualify.
“We wouldn’t want to move forward with a campaign that we don’t think we are well-positioned to win,” Smith said. “We have to look at our current level of support, what we accomplished last year and our plans for this year and make a decision.”
The goal is to avoid a demoralizing repeat of 2009, Smith said. Voters rejected, by a margin of 53 percent to 47 percent, a same-sex marriage law passed by legislators led by Democrats and signed by then-Gov. John Baldacci, also a Democrat. In 2010, Republicans won control of both legislative chambers and the governor’s office for the first time since 1966.
Advocates for changing the law have sought to build support by knocking on 100,000 doors around the state and collecting signatures to get the issue on the ballot, Smith said. A presidential election, which attracts more young voters who tend to support same-sex marriage, may make it easier to win passage, she said.
“All this leads us to believe that 2012 is a very different year for us than 2009,” Smith said. “Until we finally win marriage at the ballot, opponents will always claim that marriage is supported only by the courts and legislatures, but not by the people.”
Gay marriage isn’t an issue that motivates Republicans or that most people are paying attention to, said Charlie Webster, the Republican Party’s state chairman and a former Senate leader from Farmington.
“In the end, if it goes on the ballot, it will help us more than hurt us,” Webster said by telephone. “The average voter will see this once again as the Democrats pushing this on us instead of focusing on the economy.”
Bob Emrich, a pastor at the Emmanuel Bible Baptist Church in Plymouth, helped lead Stand for Marriage Maine, the group that spearheaded the campaign against the law in 2009. The organization won’t regroup unless EqualityMaine gets the issue on the ballot, which he said he thinks is likely to happen.
“What we’ve been doing is building the network and expanding grassroots connections to people in Maine and talking to people around the country,” Emrich said. “We need to be ready so when this starts, we hit the ground running.”
Only Maine and Rhode Island bar same-sex marriages among the six New England states. New York lawmakers legalized the practice last year, joining Iowa and Washington, D.C.
Passage of the law in New York marked the first time such a measure has been approved in a state where Republicans control either legislative chamber. That step “provided a powerful example of the momentum and growing and broadening support across the political spectrum,” said Evan Wolfson, president of Freedom to Marry, a New York-based national advocacy organization which lobbied Albany lawmakers and is working on the issue in Maine.
“No question that we are bringing the experience we’ve had, in victories and defeats, including in New York, and that makes us confident that we’re on the right track in Maine,” Wolfson said. In November, an organization in Oregon that has worked with his group announced its intention to build more support before pushing for a similar law there.
Voters in California passed a measure outlawing gay marriage in 2008, reacting to a legal ruling, while court challenges have put the initiative in limbo. That same year, Massachusetts lawmakers blocked a drive to let voters decide whether to overturn a Supreme Judicial Court ruling making such marriages legal.
This has already been resolved by the voters of Maine. We have much bigger fish to fry these days. Things that greatly concern the overwhelming majority of Mainers, not just a very small percentage. Regardless of where you stand on the issue, it is a distraction from the things that concern us all, like the economy, jobs, and health care. A distraction that we can ill afford at this particular time. Now is not the time.
When is the time? oh yea, when its convenient for with you right?
“Civil rights are such a distraction.”
The title of your next essay.
Ah, but this involves healthcare. Since LePage plans on cutting 65,000 Mainers from insurance it’s now even more important than ever that same sex couples be able to add their partners to their insurance policies to save money. In such an awful economy it’s a very important issue.
If you’d rather focus on the bigger fis to fry, stand down and let this, something that has no effect on you, pass.
The first assertion in your post is, to be kind, an exaggeration.” The voters” implies a unanimity, or at least a majority, of the states politically eligible citizens. I may be mistaken but I don’t remember that the final vote tally reflected those kind of numbers the last time this question was put before us.
More voted against it than for it, which is why it did not become the law of the land. Nice attempt at spin though. To say that this issue greatly concerns the majority of Mainers is the exaggeration. It concerns gays, lesbians, and their friends and families. Hardly a majority of Mainers.
Please forgive me if my initial response to your post was poorly crafted. Nowhere that I can see did I say that this was an issue that “greatly concerns the majority of Mainers”. I was simply addressing the distinction between a majority and a plurality in an election.
It didn’t become the law of the land last time, but it will eventually.
Probably true. They will eventually legalize Marijuana too. I think that this coming election is far too politically charged on several major issues to make another attempt at either. Just my humble opinion.
There is never an ideal time to fight for equality.
Yes, I think it will eventually become law. The Constitution is periodically amended and expanded to afford rights to people that were previously excluded. People that point to the law saying that marraige is between a man and a woman also forget that at one point in time blacks were not allowed to marry, and women were not allowed to vote or own property. People came to realize that equal rights for all meant ALL PEOPLE, not just whites or males, and so the amendments were made that extended rights to those groups. I think eventually people will accept that homosexuals are indeed people, and that they do indeed have rights like everyone else, even if they do not agree with it.
Actually, civil rights should be the concern of everybody, not just the people that are asking for the rights. As a citizen, it is important to me that other citizens are treated equally. If we truly believe in equality and freedom for all, then we must try and extend equality and freedom to everyone, not just the people who agree with our own lifestyle and beliefs. I think of a quote (which has been attributed to many different people, MLK included, so I’m not really sure who actually said it): No one is free if others are oppressed. As a married straight woman, nobody else had the power to tell me I could or could not get married. I believe that treating all people equally means that I should not have to or be able to vote on someone else’s right to marry. The rights of a minority should never be decided on by the majority. And let’s be honest here, people, if some gay couple down the street decides to get married, it in no way shape or form diminsihes my own marraige or the sancity of the institution in general.
What do you fear if they do get married ??
Nothing. I am completely ambivalent in the matter. So are a lot of other people in this state when it comes to the gay marriage issue. I am concerned with the time it consumes debating the issue is precious time that could be spent solving the more important matters at hand to the majority. It ties up judge’s time when the court is already grossly back logged. It ties up politicians time answering where they stand on the issue instead of how they intend to vote on health care or other important matters. I know that it means the world to a gay couple to stand in front of God and marry legally. The problems is that it means nothing to me or a lot of other Mainers. Sorry if this offends anyone, but it is the truth and the sole reason it is not legal yet. Not enough people are as outraged as you yet.
The vote was much closer than what you say. Now tell me an others whats wrong with them getting married ?? They pass a law that says they can get married non of those thing will happen like you say an they have rights like everyone else dose an it will be a matter of time before it dose pass . Than as time goes by every one will wounder why there was such a big fuss made over this. The only thing that people fear is fear it’s self .
You will never convince people of faith that gay marriage is all right. Sorry if this offends you, but it is the truth. As long as half the population is against something, it stands little chance. You had better find a way to convince them that God is okay with it or you will just be frustrated at the polls again.
——————————
It will pas some time it my take another 9 years but it will pass it was only a diffrence of 5% now is that a land slide ? No.. it dose not offend me at all like i said in time it will pass an im 66 an im not gay but i do believe in there rights. Remember blacks it was said of them they would never have rights just like the white man dose.
You are probably right, it will pass eventually.
——————————
there are churches and people of faith (as good as some who claim to be people of faith) that accept the fact the gays and lesbians should have as many rights as pseudo christian hypocrites
Yet, I myself am a person of strong faith, and gay marriage is fine with me. Many religious leaders have stood up in favor of marriage for gays.
Then you own a different version of the bible than I do. Mine says homosexuality is a no-no. Probably just a typo in Leviticus.
——————————
It also specifies what kind of roof you need and that you can’t mix wool with cotton. Do you abide by ALL of Leviticus?
It may seem like a distraction to people who do not support equality, but not to those whose lives are being affected by this discrimination. This is very closely related to job and healthcare issues.
Very true. But it still remains true that most people are just not that outraged about it, myself included, for it to be enough of an issue to tackle in the next election. Complacency and ambivalence are your enemies, not ignorance or bigotry. Yes it is closely related to jobs and health care, for 5% of the population. As I said, the other 95% have bigger fish to fry this time around. Sorry if my observations offend you. It is, after all, just an observation.
I guess we’ll see if your right in the next election : )
So we should not expect the people impacted by this blatant discrimination and those who love and to remain complacent on this issue. You will find that the number of outraged citizens is climbing every day and soon we as a country will rise above this discrimination and do the right thing.
Your statements are nonsensical. If it is a nonissue for the majority of Mainers, why did they bother to come out and vote against it? If there is no real issue here, no impact beyond the impact for gays/lesbians and their friends/families, why not let the law go into effect? This is a huge issue for some because it impacts all aspects of their lives. If you think this is a distraction, what about for them? People need to get over your issues and see that this is the right thing to do. This is only time consuming because people who aren’t impacted by the law are fighting tooth and nail against it.
Now is never the time.
Let’s all vote yes and move on.
The biggest distraction in this state right now is the governor himself.
Marriage between two consenting adults is a civil right. I know gay and lesbian couples want nothing more than the right to get married if they choose to do so. This should be a non-issue.
Marriage is between a consenting Man and consenting Woman.
Despite repeated left-wing liberal activists efforts to the contrary, the majority of Maine voters said they DID NOT WANT GAY MARRIAGE.
I don’t expect that current gay agenda and activities are going to change the status quo. That’s my opinion.
****************************************************************************
EDIT —THURDAY MORNING
OK, Testpositive, according to the above poll results…YOU WIN, but only in this FORUM.
The PRIZE is a free “Intention of Marriage” Application. Cross out the words “Bride and Groom” and replace with “Bah-Ride” and “Gah-Room.” This is necessary because by DEFINITION a bride is female, and a groom is male. Your now-modified same-sex application must reflect that traditional bride and groom roles are uncertain…therefore these roles must be called something else.
Good luck to ya and see you at the REAL voting booth.
Was it a majority of all eligible voters or merely a plurality of those who participated? Quite an important distinction when deciding whether or not to discriminate against your neighbors and fellow citizens.
plurality……??? How about it was the majority of those who got up and went to the polls and voted…..the majority said no anyway you look at it. those who didnt make it to the polls are irrelevant of thier own accord.
You are correct. The majority of the votes CAST “said no anyway you look at it”. That, however, is not the point that I have been trying to make in my responses to various posters opposed to equality. If you re-read my reply to ptkitty, I would draw your attention to this part of my first sentence-“those who participated”. Unless 100% of all eligible Maine voters vote on an issue, all elections are decided by what is ,in fact, only a plurality. Without that 100% participation it is disingenuous to use the term “majority of voters” without the aforementioned qualification. Yes, yes, I know that that 100% participation rate is unrealistic in practice, but that does not excuse the misuse of the term “majority”.
I think your are talking semantics here. By “voter” you are obviously referring to all those eligible to vote. In contrast, to FarmindaleRes and other posters, “voters” refers to all those who actually voted in the last referendum. I must presume those who are not sufficiently motivated to show up for a certain vote are not especially concerned about the final outcome. Therefore I’d be more inclined to categorized these eligible voters as “non-decided voters”.
Thank you, whawell, for your temperate and reasoned response. I agree that I am concerned with the meaning of the words that we use to describe our collective reality. Words are, especially in forums like this, all we have to connect our thoughts, feelings, beliefs, etc. to others. “Majority” carries a lot of psychic weight in a democratic republic. To conflate it with “plurality” grossly distorts the description of political events. Semantics matter.
You are so right about unmotivated voters. If America really does collapse (I seriously doubt that) that may well be the reason.
Collective reality? Isn’t the reality that homosexuals exist in our society, and irregardless of their sexual preferences, doesn’t the constitution protect all citizens?
You say “all we have to do (sic) is connect our thought, feeling, beliefs, etc to others” Having said this, I suppose that “others” doesn’t include homosexuals?
Plurality means the larger or greater part. Majority means the larger or greater part, usually in reference to over half.
So according to your doctrine, LePage didn’t get the majority of votes in the last gubernatorial election; he got a plurality. Now there’s some collective reality for ya.
Please, rusjan, clarify your response for an old man who cannot seem to find the logic in the points you raise. Seriously, I do not catch your “drift”. I assure you that I am staunchly in favor of marriage equality and, indeed, all forms of equality. I fail to see how any of the posts that I have made would lead you to the conclusion that I am not. Perhaps my concern with semantics was off-putting?
And it’s also a known fact that more people vote during a presidential election, particularly non-traditional voters.
And young voters.
And a preliminary glance at the BDN poll related to this article shows what? 53% in favor and 47% against, how ironic?
I’m happy to see those results, how ever it’s not a scientific poll. I have three computers in my house and can cast a vote on each one.
Funny,…..but vote only once. That way you’ll know that your vote is legitimate.
It’s not even necessary to use different computers. I came back to this page to see if there were any new comments that were worthwhile and voted before remembering that I’d already done it.
Decisions in a democracy are made by voters, not by everyone else. That’s why straw polls – that are often misleading concerning voter intent – don’t really matter. I hope you are not suggesting the court system should annul the voters’ decision rendered in the last state-wide election.
What will happen when the majority of voters say yes to allowing me to marry my boyfriend?
To answer your question: Obviously the state will endorse your relationship. And the political battle will continue just as it has continued after abortion on demand was legalized by the highest court of the nation.
Quixotic at best.
What’s the matter with my reply? What’s so quixotic about it? I thought I’d given you a Solomanic answer you’d forever remember. I suppose you would have been happier if I told you voters would allow gay marriage once and for all times. But then, I would have been much more quixotic. :)
But why will there be a continued political battle? The PEOPLE will have said yes and, from what I’ve heard everyone from NOM down say, the issue rests with the people. That should really be the end of the story, unless you want to put it up to vote again with the requisite number of signatures, etc.
As for abortion-that is different because that nation-wide right was never put to the people.
Yes, the issue is for the people to decide, not the courts as NOM has stated. As people change so do their values. I predict there will be no solid outcome on this issue for many years to come.
The wedding industry, florists, honeymoon destinations, and people like me will all be applauding!
Are you an ordained minister?
Nope, not an ordained minister. Thank you for the compliment. I’m also not a florist and I don’t own a B&B that tries to attract honeymoon couples.
I’m just an old lady who has several gay and Lesbian friends.
We all have gay and lesbian friends, some support homosexual marriage others don’t, some are Democrats others Republicans, some support a woman’s right to snuff out their unborn child, others are actively pro-life. They are just as diverse as the rest of the population.
Well. whawell, you are certainly correct that “decisions in a democracy are made by voters”. Who would contest your statement of fact? I am ,however, bemused by your reference to straw polls. I am not sure of its relevance to my response to pkitty. As to the court system annulling voter’s decisions-happens all the time. The Constitution you know.
Yes, but what I was alluding to is the unlikelihood of the court annulling the “people’s” decision on account of the way the vote was conducted. That is why I used the term “annul” instead of the term “reverse”.
You had suggested, because the decision was made by a “plurality of voters” instead of all eligible voters, that it was not reflective of voter sentiment. I disagree. More than likely those eligible voters who did not take time to vote were apparently not sufficiently committed to one side of the issue or the other. The voting outcome, 53% versus 47% in favor of repeal, was rather significant in a liberal state like Maine. I doubt very much greater voter participation would have changed the outcome.
I have a feeling the upcoming referendum will do that just fine. You know, there is a reason why we continually confront this issue. And 53% to 47% vote on the last referendum certainly is not a firm voter mandate.
I also note that you have not or cannot respond to Regular Joe’s post. You argued throughout the voter registration referendum campaign that the legislature has decided, and other state’s have similar laws and attempted to create something that wasn’t there. 60% to 40% is a voter mandate, and the state’s that allow gay marriage are doing just fine.
there is no reason why two people in love shouldn’t be able to get married. It’s not going to be long, the US Supreme Court can’t ignore the issue forever. And we all know that it’s clearly discrimination.
I have to wonder if the current SCOTUS will do the right thing.They haven’t lately.
How close was the vote ??
5%
Not then, but that is the past. This is a different time.
If the majority don’t want gay marriage, they shouldn’t get one.
there was only a 5% difference in the vote– so all that means is 3% of people have to change their minds — and after seeing the lies the bigotry side put out, a good many of them have
Maybe more people will come out and vote against homosexual marriage.
maybe not?
You can only hope, that’s all you’re left with.
What an evil agenda! They want the stability that marriage affords for their families! Oh no! Those awful gays.
Most gays could careless about families, they only care about themselves.
Rats! You’re really on to us, aren’t you!!!
“Regular Joe” I take you as seriously as you take yourself.
Yay! We all win, then!!!
That’s not even true. They’re asking to be able to get married. They’re asking for the protections that marriage affords. They’re asking for these things because they are families. How could you say something so hateful and baseless? It’s pretty disgusting to be honest.
You need a reality check go to any large city with a large homosexual population you will find most homosexuals enjoying their singleness. Stop your emotional ranting, homosexuals for the most part do not want to get married, they enjoy their alternative lifestyle. Even in states that have allowed homosexuals to “marry” they aren’t running to the altar.
It’s so nonsensical to say that gays don’t want marriage because they want marriage. It doesn’t even make sense. Listen to yourself. You’re the one that needs to stop ranting, stop with the bigoted stereotypes already. It’s pathetic and disgusting.
So far in NH alone, over 1800 gay couples have married since they legalized it
Done a lot of research have you? Your lack of data (or ignoring the existing data) is telling.
You need a reality check. Go to any large city with a large heterosexual population you will find most heterosexuals enjoying their singleness.
Fewer straight people are getting married these days. So maybe NO ONE should have marriage then if that’s the logic you want to use.
As for single gays. Yeah-there are a lot of single gays. In fact, technically, in 44 states they are ALL single, so really, what’s your point? Many of these single gays want to get married. I really don’t know what leads you to think that you can make such blanket statements about a population you seem to know so little about.
I certainly do know a lot about it. I lived for years in a very large homosexual community. I got to know first hand how they lived and how dysfunctional they are. Oh there were a few that were ok, but most had serious emotional issues due to abuse.
I will admit that there are a lot of gays who have issues. When one grows up surrounded by a society that hates him or her and has determined that he or she is sick in the head, of course one has issues.
Many studies done in the early days on gays were done by mental health doctors who were treating those gays. Those studies naturally selected for gays with issues and did not take into account the gays who were living healthy and well-adjusted lives because they had no reason to see a mental health professional.
I think it’s unfortunate that you have formed an opinion based on the small sample group you had contact with. Please keep in mind that there are gay people all across the country who are living healthy, happy, and productive lives.
You understate: as I understand it, at least, early studies were done on convicts and those in mental institutions, comparing gay people there with straight people in the general population. A bizarre way of going about things, really. But not that different than what some organizations do now to generate convenient statements.
I’m sure that you know traditional couples who act the same way, children or no children.
I get the feeling that many people seem to think that with just a little bit of oppression here and there, they can go back to that television ideal from 1952 that never really was.
Heh, heh, heh…..good one. Was “Dialing For Dollars” on then? That’s what these people are worried about.
Huh?
Based on what data? A national survey (Q. Do you are more about a) family or b) yourself?)?
Or have you done intensive research with hundreds of gay men and Lesbian women?
Oh wow national survey ok Liz, go around and ask your typical gay about how he feels about family. They would laugh in your face, for the most part they are social anarchist who could care less about what people think about them.
Dear, me! Do you often make such sweeping judgments without any basis in fact?
I have plenty of research behind what I state, however LizDavies you can look it up yourself. Warning Liz when you do an internet search most of the research is pro homosexual, not very objective.
If you had actual data, you’d post it. I suspect that what you have is a very strongly held opinion. Which you’re entitled to. Only, when you state that an incredibly diverse group of people are all “social anarchists”, you have to figure somebody’s going to challenge you. It’s a sweeping generalization.
OK if you claim to be as open minded to data I challenge you first read the many articles regarding homosexuality from this source. Before you begin read about the editor homosexuality site:http://www.culturewars.com then from there do some research on your own.
Wow, the CultureWars founder is a fascinating guy!
“He founded Fidelity magazine after being fired as a professor at South Bend’s Catholic women’s college, St. Mary’s. According to religion scholar Michael Cuneo, Fidelity was devoted to exposing wrongdoing in the church with a special emphasis on sex, a topic Jones seems obsessed with. Jones developed a reputation for his frequent clashes with other radical traditionalists, notably Father Nicholas Gruner…
“In 1996, Jones changed the name of his magazine to Culture Wars, and he has increasingly focused on the alleged evils of the Jews as he adds to his “continuing series on the Jews…. Jones runs through all the usual anti-Semitic canards — the ideas that “Jewish media elites” run the country, that Jews are “major players” in pornography, and that Jews are behind Masonry and the French Revolution — but that’s only the start…” [Southern Poverty Law Center Intelligence Report, Winter 2006, Issue Number: 124 ]
Are you sure you want to cite (and apparently support) support the views of a radical anti-Semite?
lol, ouch! Good job Liz!
Thanks! Wikipedia is down, but I’m a pretty skillful researcher.
many sites blacked out today, I’m glad they did.
She googled his name (wow Liz skillful researcher ) and of course Southern Law Poverty comes up regarding him, they hate him and have tried to discredit Michael Jones for years.
I’ve given his articles to many of my lefty friends and they claim calling him a radical anti-semite is a way to shut people up who don’t agree with Israel’s stand on the Palestinians.
So Liz you not going to intimidate me. You can choose not to look beyond your narrow view of the world.
Please clarify: do YOU agree with him that the World War II Nazi genocide of the Jews was simply an understandable “reaction to Jewish Messianism”?
I will not comment on something you obviously took out of context from SLPC , you obviously did not read the whole article.
By the way are you a UCC minister?
Nope, not a UCC minister. In what context would a remark about Jews deserving genocide be regarded as anything but evil?
The killing of Jews was just as evil as today the killing of the unborn.
Wow. Hyperbolic stereotyping.
I think that love is love……the world is just too screwed up and complicated to not recognize love. We have better things to be voting on, this is indeed a non issue. We can have pot heads dispensing pot legally, but two people in love can’t get married?
And 53% to 47% is an awfully close vote, and I wouldn’t call it a stunning majority, nor is it a mandate; it’s not a. let’s not see this again type thing like the voter registration results were.
Pot dispensaries are not legal. They can be shut down by the feds, and they are being shut down across the country. Not long before they’ll be hitting Maine. Marijuana has many medical purposes, not only that, but hemp can be used for all sorts of materials from clothing to rope, it’s very cheap to produce and is a very strong material. Marijuana should be legal.
Well, jeez thats funny, I guess all of the newspapers were lying when they printed that a new dispensary opened on Jan. 15, (3 days ago) in Hallowell.
I know that marijuana has medicinal value, that’s why there are dispensaries. And my comment was “dispensing pot”, (dispensing, is a verb meaning to distribute) A dispensary is the place where they do it. And in Maine, medicinal marijuana dispensaries are legal.
yes, they are legal in the state, but state law will not trump federal law.
AMEN
what is the “gay agenda”?
The “gay agenda” is homosexual people pushing their views on everyone. If people don’t agree with them they harass, call people names and throw temper tantrum if they don’t get their way.
oh, kind of like religious people?
I don’t know any religious people who act like that, if they do they obviously have issues. But, I saw after the last vote the true side of the homosexuals come out. They had pure hatred coming out of their mouths.
plenty of Jahovahs out there knocking on doors, plenty of Christians making phone calls soliciting, harassing me and other people I know. Claiming I’m going to hell for this or that. I certainly call that harassment, and I’ve seen plenty of them get very angry when I tell them I’m an Atheist, and kindly tell them they’re wasting their time with me. How about the Westboro Baptist Church aka “god hates (insert what ever group you wish here)”?
I have no problem with gay people being angry. I think they have every right to be angry. All they’re asking for is to have the same rights as everyone else. Why is this so unfathomable? Do you think women were angry when we were trying to get equal rights, or black people? Darn right some of them were, and with good reason. Live and let live. Equal rights for all.
When has a Christian (other than someone a close family or friend) called you and told you you were going to hell? It didn’t happen. I received a letter from Paul and Jeannette Rediker address from Brewer, ME, they really live up in the County. Their letter state they were Catholic, I found out they are no longer practicing. They are being used by Equality Maine Foundation to harass Catholics into accepting homosexuality. Equality Maine is even sending people to homes of people who have written letters to the editor or signed anything not support homosexual marriage.
I’m just as angry as you are and I will fight against homosexual marriage just as much as you fight for it.
actually, you’re wrong. I have had it happen, I have had Christians even tell me that to my face because I am an Atheist.
Go check out St. John’s Catholic Church in Bangor. There’s a big sign in front that says, “Catholics can always come home.” I bet that includes the Redikers…
Yes you are correct, however as a Catholic they must be loving and kind to the homosexual person, but homosexual unions will never be embraced by the Church.
I’ve had Christians (I’m taking their word on that) who were complete strangers tell me I’m going to Hell, though generally not to my face. It’s an odd assumption. But why do you ask?
(I’m not firmly attached to any particular denomination, but was baptized in a Southern Baptist church and am currently most nearly Methodist or Episcopalian.)
Well I agree completely with the second paragraph. But, just to clear things up, you should know that while Jehovah’s Witnesses might knock on doors and annoy people, they don’t believe in eternal hell that some Christians might hang over your head and they don’t vote. So they aren’t swaying the gay marriage issue in either direction politically. Maybe they should be left alone in forums like this.
Funny thing about people who are denied basic rights afforded by the U.S.Constitution, they get upset and say hateful things.
Speaking of the “H” word, how about all of that from the anti side?
Yep the dreaded “H” word, I refuse to call homosexuals anything but what they are, homosexuals. Have a problem with that. You’re welcome to call me heterosexual, I’m not offended.
Yes. We all do that. Good call! You should have seen me when I was denied the God-given RIGHT to try on that Dior gown at Saks a few years back. Names, tantrums, oh! Quite the scene I made!
Of course, those who oppose us have killed some in our group, but let’s not bring that up, eh?
We are talking about gay marriage,……not the actions of our gay hating tea party Governor!
I have never been harassed by those in favor. They haven’t done anything that any other group would do as it relates to campaigning on a referendum issue. If you remember correctly, Charlie Webster tried to implicate gay people in voter fraud, what’s up with that?
You mean kind of like what the radical right does?
Oh my, feeling persecuted, are we?
Actually you’re the constant victim
Don’t forget the cries of “hate crime”, “discrimination” and “inequality”.
Wow! You mean the whole anti national park coalition of nutters and thugs are part of a clandestine “gay agenda” movement?? That’s an eyeopener! I have always wondered about those phallic paper mill chimneys and the ferocious and illogical attachment and emotional outpouring they continue to evince in the heart of the “Pine Tree” state..
http://everything2.com/title/The+homosexual+agenda
But now the majority of Maine knows the Tea Party and their ilk are full of BS up to their eyebrows. The public won’t listen to, believe or fall for their lies this time. What better way to send a message to the radicalized GOP that Maine is NOT impressed with them or their governor by passing Same Sex Marriage on LePage’s watch. It would humiliate LePage, and with the way he has humiliated Maine he has it coming. I want this on the ballot…it’s high time Same Sex Marriage came to Maine. They have it in all kinds of other states and the sky didn’t fall.
What people want and what is fair and just is often out of sync. Great evils, embraced by majorities, have fallen, but it is not easy for the light of decency to penetrate the convolutions of oppression.
A much larger majority (about 70%) of white voters were opposed to interracial marriage immediately prior to the Loving decision. A majority of male voters were opposed to suffrage for women. No civil right has ever been granted by popular vote. If it passes by popular vote here in Maine, then that’s great, but ultimately the SCOTUS will have to decide whether the federal government will grant recognition to same sex couples and cause all states to legalize SSM. Prop 8 appears to be destined for the Supreme Court. Perhaps by this time next year, SSM in the USA will be a non-issue, as it should be.
Homosexual unions and marriages were a lot more readily accepted by religion hundreds of years ago. The prejudicial attitude so common today is a recent development historically. Of course, no religious person is interested in what really happened historically, as evidenced by their belief in the veracity of bronze age fairy tales.
http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2007/08/070823110231.htm
You can also look up the book “Same Sex Unions In Premodern Europe” by John Boswell. I’m sure that the fundies out there will gravitate to the scathing fundie-authored review by Horvat as their holy repudiation of the book. I would encourage a more neutral source.
If the religious nutjobs could get away from looking in everyone else’s bedroom windows and doing their worst to create an American theocracy, we’d all be a lot better off. Keep your silly religion in your church where it belongs, and stop messing around with other people’s lives.
As of right now the above poll is close but the YES has it!
You mean the human agenda?
just a group that feels they are superior to normal sexuality folks. all they want is to degrade society even further,thats all they are good for.
Impeccable logic, from northern Maine I suppose.
And it’s not just the left-wing liberal activists. Are you serious? The majority of whites didn’t want civil rights for African Americans either; The majority of Americans didn’t want interracial marriage or women’s rights. God help us if we actually listened to the majority.
Humans are the only animals on earth that exhibit homophobia.
Yes this is a non issue, what’s really behind this sham is homosexual people want everyone to embrace and accept people who choose (yes I said choose) to be openly homosexual. In order to achieve this goal they will come to your door, mail letters to your home, addressing you by name to the point of harassment in order to get want they want. Who they really are are emotionally immature adults who will throw a temper tantrum until they get so called gay marriage. ( which in truth they really don’t want).
the ones that are emotionally immature are the ones that are so insecure of their own sexuality , they are afraid of being tainted.
I wonder how many of the opponents of gay marriage have been divorced, or have fornicated outside the sanctity of marriage
I’m proud to have never been divorced or fornicated outside the sanctity of marriage, how about you?
You obviously by your response mock marriage and that’s why you answered the way you did.
no, I mock the sanctimonious pious
at what point in your life did you choose to be heterosexual?
You are born either male or female and the purpose of sex and marriage is for procreation. When did you choose to deny basic biology?
That’s pretty good.
then explain people who can not reproduce getting married…medical conditions, age…Read some of the scientific studies on homosexuality, and ponder this question as well….Why would anybody “choose” to be homosexual with all of the hatred that they have to face in the world, why would someone “choose” to be this way?
Marriage is not for the sole purpose of reproduction.
http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2008/dec/01/homosexuality-genetics-usa
Why do they choose to be homosexual I don’t know why do some people choose to have sex with animals?
so, you equate homosexuality with beastiality?
Yep
that is some insane leaps in logic.
“‘Well, if two women or men can get together, then what’s next, bestiality?’ I love that that’s right where they go to; bestiality. And they think we’re weird?”
– Ellen Degeneres, The Beginning
“
Gee, I work with 2 lesbians and what you’ve written in no way describes either one of them. They probably have more caring and compassion in their little finger nail than you do in your entire body. Sounds like you are nothing but a bigot!!!!
I don’t care what you think of me.
In fact, most gay people I know want to be left alone to live their lives as the rest of the Free Americans.
As for coming to the door, sending email, etc., many religious institutions do the same thing.
What is this about addressing you by name?
And why don’t I really want to be able to marry my boyfriend?
Sham-the only sham I see is when straight people hop from marriage to marriage, sometimes only being married for a few hours.
And let’s not forget the biggest sham-when straight people COMPETE ON TELEVISION to marry someone.
Sheesh.
If two people want to get “married”, why not? Let them get “married”. It’s another thing however to require the state to endorse gay and lesbian unions. The state is not and should not be in the business of legally endorsing relationships, except where the well-being of offspring is concerned. People should be free to make and break whatever relationships they have without any government involvement. What everyone needs to keep in mind is that state sanctioned marriage is a life-long commitment of fidelity and love between contracting members for the welfare and well-being of children arising from this relationship.
easy to say when you are allowed to marry and have all the financial and insurance benefits of a legal union.
Point: my partner and I have built a small business together. When I die, he will be forced to sell the business to pay the inheritance taxes, currently at about 58%. If we were married, he might not have to ruin what we have worked so hard to build as a retirement nest egg together.
As a tax paying American citizen, I find it to be a wildly discriminatory law.
It sounds like you have a fairly big business. You and your partner need to obtain a tax attorney to arrange for your financial affairs in the event of the death of either you or your partner. But just think, you are not being treated any differently than, say, two brothers in a business partnership.
I don’t know about your real motivation for wanting to have the state endorse your relationship to your partner, but I do get the impression from most gay and lesbian couples that their main interest in wanting to change the definition of marriage is to attain greater public acceptance. Supporters of abortion before Roe v Wade hoped that legalized abortion would bring about greater public acceptance. It did initially, but now the trend seems to have reversed where the public is growing more uneasy about abortion. For that reason, I believe those who pursue a change in the marriage law to include gay and lesbian unions will find themselves rather disenchanted when the goal of greater public acceptance falls short of expectations, if the change is successful achieved, that is.
Why should we have to pay more money than straight couples to get almost the same benefits?
There are so many situations where being married will benefit the two parties that it’s almost impossible to plan ahead with a lawyer to make sure that every single one is covered.
Of course, having the state issue a marriage license solves all that.
First, the benefits derived from marriage is a cost to the state. The state doles out those benefits in order to promote the traditional family, the basic core of every healthy society. While you might never derive any of the same benefits, you may never need them either. Unlike my mom who stayed home rather than be gainfully employed to assist the family directly, you have no need to remain home to care for children. Unless you are disabled, you can earn your own benefits through your employer.
With regards to inheritance, it’s possible to plan ahead somewhat if not entirely. There is never any guarantee your assets – or your will – will be executed completely according to your plans. Know that a lot of people, not through their own fault in nearly half the cases, are left single on account of divorce. Most of these individuals will not derive any spousal benefits.
Not even just “almost” impossible. In some cases, it’s a true impossibility. Immigration, for instance. And an important one nobody ever hopes to have to use: Fifth Amendment protection against self-incrimination extends to spouses too.
But their relationship is not like that between brothers. It’s like that between spouses. Therefore, they should have the option of getting it *treated* as such under the law.
Interesting!!! I divorced my children’s father out of concern for the well-being of my children. Accordingto you, we would have all been better off if I’d stayed in that physically and emotionally abusive relationship “for the children.” You have no idea what you are talking about.
Many people who oppose marriage equality feel that way. It’s better to be in an abusive home with mom and dad than a loving one with two dads or two moms-crazy talk, I say!!!
I’m sorry for what happened in your marriage. Let me affirm, you did the right thing by distancing yourself from your ex. Relationships don’t always work out as your case illustrates.
When people marry the state cannot obviously tell how the commitment will turn out. It endorses the union of contracting parties with its blessings. That’s all it can do in the practical sense. Still, that endorsement can make a difference in children’s lives when the relationship gets tested, as all of them do at some point or another. In your case, the relationship was more than tested. It turned out to be an occasion for ongoing abuse, I can only surmise. Moving out of the relationship was a better option than remaining in it for all concerned.
Under your concept of civil rights, and according to your first sentence, family members could marry.
What you are asking is for a “definition change”..make up a new word to call your or their union, submit to the irs or state taxation law to equal those two titles and you are good.
Should a mother be able to marry her adult son? A father marry a daughter? A brother marry a sister? Should all of these be a non-issue too? Once you open the definition of marriage to modification, where do you draw the line?
Just say No…and No Again…and No Again…and No Again…and No Again…and No Again…and No Again…and No Again.
I believe I’ve entered the correct amount of times that we’ve been “forced” to waste out precious time and $ to vote on this PC issue.
Oh Yeah, one more point, Please stop forcing Your homoSexuality on Me !
I Demand that your selfish intolerance of my Normal Heterosexual practices cease and desist.
Keep the Family as it is intended to be, man & woman!
If everyone was like you, man with man or woman with woman, then we as a People would be non-existant.
Actually, in “Some” cases, like yours… that would really resolve Your Issues now wouldn’t It ?!?!
Peace & Love… in a Totally “Straight” way of course !! Forever yours…357 ;<)
The only rational usage of “forcing your homosexuality on me” would be cases of rape. Are you claiming to have been raped?
Perv!
Tolerance is enduring irrational twerps like you.
Once again it looks like Equality Maine has called upon their comrades to vote on the BDN poll. There are also many out of state people voting too because my e-mail has been flooded.
HomoSexuality does Not promote the human populace,
so if you have your way,
your “Species” will become Extinct in a generation,
I’ll vote For THAT To Happen a Gazillion Times !!!
Yawn-what a tired argument.
Babies are still being born in this world, even in places where the gays can marry the person he or she loves.
In those places, men don’t suddenly desire men. Maybe those who already desired men are more inclined to act on it, but Archie doesn’t suddenly drop Veronica for Reggie.
If Archie likes dames before, he’ll like dames afterwards. And he’ll do what needs to be done to make a baby.
Teenage boys will still dig teenage girls and we’ll still have babies having babies, too.
The majority of people on this planet are straight and will always be straight and will continue to make babies-most of whom will be straight and some even gay.
As for the extinction of the species caused by homos-it’s more likely a comet will destroy the planet than the earth will be converted to gays who have no desire for children.
Oh-besides, my boyfriend has had two children and they have five between them. I think it’s okay if I don’t have any children.
Or are you saying that EVERY PERSON MUST PROCREATE!!!!! ?
we don’t want that here. how many elections must we go through before you understand that?
Unti it is here.
The voters in Maine will continue to vote it down , please waste your time and money elsewhere.
opinions are changing. Every year new voters reach voting age, and they are very likely to support same sex marriage. Every year older voters die, the very ones most likely to oppose it. It is only a matter of time even if no one ever changes their mind (which isn’t the case, people are becoming supporters all the time).
obviously….just look at the votes on this page…. I dont see an increase on the gay side…
It is just a matter of time before it passes. The older, religious zealots are dying off and the younger generation does not embrace organized religion and all of its trappings.
I find it quite surprising how among the younger generation that christians are in the minority. The younger generation (at least the smart ones) are questioning everything and are no longer basing their lives on beliefs, just because that’s what they are supposed to do.
and the older gays are dying off faster. It dont take religion to know that gays are sexual deviants.
Nope. I don’t consider it a waste of my time or money, and this is my home.
Keep voting it down and it will be you wasting your time and money trying to stop something that has no real effect on you.
That, sweetie, is your choice. I’ve made mine, and will not cease this fight.
speak for yourself. I want my gay friends to have the opportunity to marry their life-long partner. It doesn’t affect you in the slightest bit. Republicans love to talk about getting the government out of our lives, unless it is telling you who you can or can’t marry.
The government didn’t decide this. The voters did. This isn’t a Republican v. Democrat thing.
First of all, the whole citizen’s veto process is being abused here. If we left civil rights up to voters, there are some places in the south that would still have segregation. The law shouldn’t have been subject to a popular vote. However, that will become unimportant, as popular opinion is moving towards the way of marriage equality. Every year more supporters reach voting age, and more of the opposition dies. Every year, more people realize that it is OK to support same sex marriage — the world wont end, and it won’t affect their “traditional” marriage.
And it is certainly a Democrat vs Republican issue, as it is Republican’s and Republican-affiliated groups that are the primary opposition to marriage equality.
It may have been decided by voters once, but people’s views on the issue are changing.
Do you watch the news? Do you see the bullying that is plaguing public schools, restaurants and the Internet? Opposition does not die. I have no idea why anyone would believe that.
The younger the voter the more likely they are to support marriage equality. The older the voter the less likely. Older voters are dying, more younger voters are coming of age. In 10 years there is no question the majority of voters will support same sex marriage. That is all I meant. Voters that oppose marriage equality are literally dying faster than they are replaced.
Is obomma a republican?
I bet Obama supports same sex marriage, however until very recently it would be political suicide to state that publicly. It would still be difficult for a pro marriage equality candidate to win a general election for president.
So he’s a liar then?
What about the campaign director of Yes on 1 admitting they used lies in their ads in order to veto the gay marriage law?
Your point is what? That we have a lying President and some other guy that lies?
Wow! Sheer Genius.
find me a politician or any president that hasn’t lied about something.
No president’s opinions or actions affect the validity of our fight for civil marriage.
He’s very careful about his wording… but actions speak louder than words. And his actions have been to the good on this; certainly moreso than any current opponent would be. Opposition to *removing* gay marriage where it already exists (California and Hew Hampshire), refusal to defend the indefensible DOMA and supporting its repeal, etc.
They never will understand that. They don’t care what the voters want, as is evidenced in the other states that have voted same-sex marriage down.
As was the case in the era of slavery, sometimes the people do not reflect the promises of liberty embodied in our founding principles. This does not diminish the value of these ideals.
Ending suffrage took many attempts as well. We do not question the propriety of those who fought to end slavery even after electoral rebukes from the fearful and ignorant. Bias is a manifestation of fear. Once we understand how much we are all alike, the fear subsides and reason wins the day. You will come to understand this once we have overcome the stagnant fear that still lurks in the hearts of mostly our older citizens. The younger generation has no regard for the bias you seek to keep an institutional reality. None whatsoever. If not now, the next generation will not hesitate to do the right thing.
Will you claim you only wish to get rid of Bias when the Man Boy love group claims they want their rights too?
After all they are already making the case that our children are much more mature and the age of consent for marriage at one time was much lower in many states?
How long before you find a way to claim that pedophilia laws are biased and need to be changed.
I’m sure you will cite freedom and equality and compare the oppressive conditions we are forcing on those innocent people who are in love to the days of slavery then too.
Associating gays and lesbians with “man boy groups” shows how completely out of touch you are with reality. This attempt comes off as very desperate, if that’s the best argument that you have left, we don’t have much to worry about.
Getting people to accept deviant behavior is nothing more than a matter of incremental ism. Get them to accept a little more and a little more until over time there are no standards of right and wrong left.
It’s been going on for years and it repeats itself over and over in great civilizations throughout history. Once the society has no more values it will collapse.
It is always people like you leading the charge towards chaos.
Nothing new to see here.
When did you decide not to have same sex relations? Were you afraid that your family would discard you? Did you decide that it wasn’t worth fighting for your rights? Please tell what it was like to make that choice.
If your claim is that “it is not their fault they are attracted to the same sex” then I agree.
That does not mean we should accept the behavior.
It may also be that men who are attracted to horses are also born that way, but I refuse to accept that relationship as legitimate no matter how you attempt to blur the lines of morality in the future.
We all have choices forced on us by the moral decisions of society as a whole and we live with that oppression.
That is the price we pay to remain a society of rules and laws.
Your argument is nonsensical. Does heterosexual marriage lead to man-girl or woman-boy marriage? No, so why would it happen for gay marriage?
The price we pay for living in a free society is having to listen to bigots like you. It’s a pain, but it’s worth it.
You can’t discuss anything without name calling can you?
So anyone who disagrees with you, no matter how politely they make their point on this subject is going to get the same response from you?
It sort of shows you don’t have a lot to offer on the subject you know.
Answer the question. If heterosexual marriage doesn’t lead to man-girl/woman-boy relationships, why would it be different for homosexual ones?
Ask the question in only one spot and stop jumping around.
You’re avoiding the question. Answer it. If heterosexual marriage doesn’t lead to man-girl/woman-boy relationships, why would it be different for homosexual ones?
You *still* haven’t answered the question even in one spot… and you have no sane ground to complain of responses to your posts being repeated when you repeat yourself first.
(No, going on in generalities about “moral decay” is not an answer. And without a true and direct answer, you have really should have better sense than to repeat the claim as you do.)
My relationship with my partner of 8 years goes far beyond the physical. I want to have the option to protect what we have built if one of us dies. We can go to a lawyer and get all kinds of wills and trusts drawn up, but all it takes is a conservative judge to undo all of that (which is not uncommon in NC) I know two people that it has happened to. Families will shun their gay children until they realize there is something of value that they can get after death, this happens every day.
I tried for the first 28 years of my life to be “straight”, it didn’t work. I instead, decided to be happy and content to be who I am. There is nothing “deviant” about our behavior, it’s totally natural and happens in other species besides human. Did you ever think that maybe homosexuality could be god’s most humane form of birth control?
I’m not religious so that diversion won’t take you far. I do understand the legal issues and I’m not sympathetic because I still see this as just another deviant behavior that you have learned it is OK to say yes to. I am willing to believe that people are born attracted to actions that are out of the norm. I would bring up again the other examples of this but then the name calling starts.
That being said I do not believe that just because you feel like doing something you should do it.
Either one of my examples would work in this case but again the name callers get upset when I use them.
LOL, you talking about diversions! What a joke.
I didn’t just decide “I think I’m going to be attracted to men, that sounds good”. Why should I hide who I am and who I love to make people like you more comfortable in your own skin? That’s not my responsibility. If you are uncomfortable with who I am and others like me, maybe you should seek the true reason, instead of trying to push us back into the closet, this isn’t our problem, it is yours.
I am not uncomfortable with who you think you are. I just don’t like what you you represent. I don’t have to push you into the closet since you will die out on your own but I do feel the right to speak out against things I feel to be wrong. You and yours feel you should take away my right to speak with “hate speech” laws and many other ways you wish to shut down opposing views. Just because I disagree with you. I won’t stop speaking on it no matter how many new insults you come up with and no matter how you try to compare your condition with a persons color. You have perversion that you have given in to and you now want to be treated as if someone has made you a victim. Congrats.
When I fall in love with my apple pie maybe we can someday get married to.
Deviant based on what? There has been homosexuality since the beginning of time, The only argument against homosexuality is a religious one. Besides, ask any sociologist, deviant behavior is only deviant until it becomes a norm. Protestants were considered deviant, anti-slavery proponents were considered deviant, women’s libber’s were considered deviant… until they achieved their goals and their deviant ideas became the norm.
That was pretty much my point on incrementalism. We are constantly being pushed to accept more and more extreme behavior as time goes on until nothing is morally wrong.
Thanks for making my point.
The end result of course is chaos but as long as we look it at one little adjustment at a time anyone who points that out is over reacting so I won’t.
If heterosexual marriage doesn’t lead to man-girl/woman-boy relationships, why would it be different for homosexual ones?
Correct, because it takes time to get ideas like equality through some thick skulls. Oh and as homosexuality isn’t illegal, it is not deviant, at least in the sociological sense of the word. To call homosexuality deviant in any other sense of the word reeks of prejudice, which in our society is deviant behavior.
The legality question was the first one your group did go after because you know you would need to be able to make this point in the future.
First the laws were changed but it has taken awhile for the moral decay to catch up.
Kind of leads back to my point about the laws deviants are working to change now doesn’t it?
Once the laws are changed all you need to do then is let it be out in the open enough to become more accepted by the children you’ve corrupted. Once they reach voting age it’s all down hill from there.
Literally.
How is equality moral decay? Please explain that. The only place where homosexuality is “immoral” is Christianity. Do you realize your “moral decay” argument was used in an attempt to keep blacks in slavery, women from voting, and in an attempt to prevent the civil rights legislation of the 60’s?
You call it equality only because you and yours have worked for 10o years or so to change moral values to the point where you can claim the practice is legitimate in some way. Homosexuality has never been widely accepted in history even predating Christianity. Yes, as some societies decayed the any thing goes mentality has allowed for homosexuality and many other practices which you all don’t wish to discuss on the same level. The reason you don’t wish to discuss them now and wish everyone to treat them as different subjects is because you know if they are connected people will not allow this incremental change to take place.
Somehow it is wrong for me to compare deviant sexual behaviors because they are dissimilar while you are allowed to claim a persons skin color and his sexual behavior are more similar?
Rationalization at it’s finest.
They are related because people of color, women, and homosexuals have all had to face uphill battles for equality against bigotry. Your continued use of the word deviant in reference to homosexuals is wrong, and proves your bigotry, thus making you the deviant one here.
“There has been homosexuality since the beginning of time”Was it perverted behavior back then too, or only now? This has nothing to do with religion, and does not compare to slavery. You are asking people to except perverted behavior as normal, and also pollute the definition of marriage.
Make up your own word for your union, civil unions, or whatever, make up whatever rules and benefits that you all wish, and there you go. There is really no need to defile marriage. If “benefits” or “tax purposes” are the main concerns, as seem to be stated here, you could probably have it now if you would get off calling it marriage.
“Defile marriage”????
PLENTY of straight people have already done that, brother.
Then why would you want to be part of what straight people have made such a mess of. Why not show us how it’s done?
What reason is there to set up a parallel system rather than simply joining the existing one, OTHER THAN to provide an easy label to say “whatever rights you may have, you’re not *really* as good as the rest of us”? Surely there’s no reason the government should do the latter.
Why not? Are you ashamed for people to know immediately if you are homosexual? The existing system has nothing to do with homosexuals, that’s why.
Opinion polls were also distributed throughout the military and it was a ridiculous rigged joke.
…which is simply dodging the question.
There is nothing sinful or wrong about loving someone and wanting to protect the life you build with civil marriage.
I’ve read the so-called ‘Homosexual Manifesto’ written by Michael Swift in Feb. 1987 for “The Gay Community News”. It’s sick-I’d get flagged for posting it here-and it shows the true agenda of the homosexual/gay rights movement. Mr. Swift has written a number of similar articles on the same agenda. They are very enlightening.
Sounds pretty relevant, LOL. Their agenda is to get married and have a family. Marriage wasn’t even on the radar for them in 1987 as there was such hatred and ignorance about homosexuality in that time — they didn’t believe it would be possible for them to have those kinds of rights.
There is nothing enlightening about only seeking out information that affirms your beliefs. Why not meet a gay person and have a conversation? Seems to me that’d be pretty enlightening. But then again, you probably assume you might get HIV from the handshake, right?
I do know gay people. Years ago, in Austin, I worked for two homosexuals for several years. Consequently, I was around many of their homosexual friends. They were the most emotionally unstable, promiscuous, people I’ve ever known.
What Michael Swift said in ’87 is completely relevant now. That isn’t information that affirms my beliefs. He said what he said publicly in a ‘gay’ magazine. That was/is the agenda. I could list some other homosexual leaders who have made more recent quotes about their agenda, but I think Mr. Swift encapsulated the idea best.
Wow, I had no idea that meeting a handful of gay people in Texas gave you omnipotence to the values and behaviors of gays of all walks of life, races, and religions.
Seriously, we are all people just as you are, some behave poorly but most behave well. And those of us who are in long term relationships who want civil marriage aren’t the type you cite as your stereotype.
Well, if you read the post above mine, I was told to go out and meet some ‘gay’ people; that I’d find it enlightening. I already know some ‘gay’ people. I do find it enlightening.
I think you know far more gay people than you realize, because most don’t fit your stereotype.
I don’t think the homosexual community is as large as you would have everyone believe. Yes, there are areas that have larger concentrations, but they are not mainstream, nor ever will be. There is no ‘gay’ stereotype in my mind. I’ve known and worked with many homosexuals. Austin, where I went to college, is considered the San Francisco of the Southwest. There are a lot more than a ‘handful’ of homosexuals there. The city is an anomaly in Texas. I’ve seen the lifestyle, the nightlife firsthand.
So long as you claim there even is a “the lifestyle,” much less directly equate that to a particular nightlife, you prove that you either do not know anywhere near the variety that exists, or else that you find it inconvenient and prefer to acknowledge only those you can point to as a bad example.
LOL, you are in serious denial. We are everywhere, in every community, most of us are still simply uncomfortable letting our communities know we are gay because of the irrational prejudice you see.
I live in a rural area and I have no shortage of gay friends, and I don’t seek them out— most of my friends are straight.
Funny; I live in a near-rural area and know nobody, so far as I know, who isn’t straight.
Confirmation bias, neither more nor less. Don’t even notice all the normal gay folks, largely because we *are* normal… but the ones with the negative characteristics you’re expecting to find, you remember.
Are you seriously saying that homosexual behavior is “normal”?
The orientation is normal, though relatively unusual. The “behavior” follows logically from that.
This does not, of course, include things tacked on that don’t belong to us any more than to straight people (at least when they can get away with them): for example, drugs, “nightlife,” promiscuity, etc.
You’d find my life quite boring, I promise.
I don’t believe you. Some of my straight friends are wildly promiscuous. Some of my straight friends are racists. Some of my straight friends are plain stupid. Should I paint with a broad brush and assume that they’re all alike? No, that would be ignorant.
Why don’t you talk to a gay couple that is asking for the right to be married? Are you scared that it might challenge your view of them? Also, if you’re against promiscuity, why would you want to bar gays from marriage? Wouldn’t allow them to marry encourage monogamy? Wouldn’t it encourage stability?
You complain about things that you have a part in creating.
They will see the stereotype, latch on to it, and hold it dearly to their hearts in the effort to keep us all down.
Not enlightening, inflammatory. Of the hundreds of gay people I know, this doesn’t represent even one of them. I can’t believe that someone would be so stupid as to bring up something like this as evidence against gay marriage. You are truly awful.
You mean the one that actually begins with this introductory statement? (google the original): “This
essay is an outré, madness, a tragic, cruel fantasy, an eruption of
inner rage, on how the oppressed desperately dream of being the
oppressor.”
I had no clue that I was bound by some missive written over 20 years ago by someone I’ve never met.
Oddly enough, I’m simply trying to live my life with my family here in Maine, and I’m fighting unjust discrimination on the part of my government. I’d like to protect that family with civil marriage, why does this affect you?
The man-boy love group has rights, just not the right to break the law and molest minors. I live a committed and responsible life with my same sex partner. I find pedophilia as hideous as anyone else. they have nothing to do with one another.
I am tired of paying substantially more in taxes because my partner is a man and cannot be considered a dependent even though we share one income for all of our expenses. We do not rely on the state for any portion of our subsistence. Still, I pay about 35% higher taxes than if I was married to a woman and have no social security benefits to leave my surviving partner. Why should I have to pay more for less than heterosexuals?
How could a real modern conservative with a straight face contend that government needs to be big enough to decide who and how we are to love? That is the biggest most oppressive government I can imagine.
Once the age of consent changes the definition of pedophilia will also change right?
Ridiculous. Do you even believe what you are saying? Nobody is talking about changing the age of consent, nobody at all.
Really?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Age_of_consent_reform
The age of consent is generally lower for heterosexual relations in most areas than it is for homosexual ones. So again, stupid and nonsensical argument.
The efforts to Lower the age of consent is taking place for both sexes and for the same reasons but it does appear that you wish to make one more point for the man boy love issue. I’m sure they appreciate your support as much as this group does.
My point remains that lowering our moral standards constantly and incrementally on all fronts only leads us down as a society. Learn your history.
No, I’m highlighting the stupidity of your argument. These aren’t the same issue. The age of consent is lower in most places for heterosexual relations and yet I don’t see you out screeching that heterosexuals are pedophiles. I don’t support the pedophelia, so don’t put words in my mouth.
This is exactly what you want. You change the subject in order to derail the conversation because you have no real points of information. Your argument has no merits without diverting to some other topic.
These aren’t the same issue and I was not claiming they are. They are connected issues as are the many other efforts to lower our moral standards as a nation. You want this issue to stand alone and for others not to connect it to the bigger picture and I understand that. I don’t have the ability to fight this moral decay and I’m very sure you will get the results you wish for. I just want to make sure that you understand history and that you understand the direction you are pushing this society that’s all.
Your argument would be like arguing that kitchens should be banned because at times people burn themselves with hot food. It’s so tenuous and isolated.
I also notice you’re having a very hard time answer the question I posed to you earlier.
His arguments have not changed in years on this front… and he wonders why his side keeps losing.
You’d think they’d learn something by now.
The age of consent should be the same for both sexes and for all types of sex, including between two males or two females. And it ought to be written so as not to punish those very close in age even if they happen to be on opposite sides of that line. Other than straightening out that sort of issue, though, I know of no attempts to change the age of consent in the United States.
Sorry, the corporations have tried to destroy the internet and I cannot read the wiki link you provided. Perhaps I will check back to see what if what you claim as a movement to reduce the age of consent to permit easy access to children is valid. Methinks not.
Seeing as Wikipedia’s been down *all day,* and that this was announced long in advance, the broken link has to be deliberate.
The old claim is that the liberals want the government in your wallet and the conservatives want it in the bedroom. It’s not really that simple, of course; for starters, neither seems interested in staying out of people’s wallets. But if it were, I’d choose freedom in my personal life to freedom in my finances any day.
Comparison of legal activities among adults to those that would harm children (and break the law in doing so) is a mark of immense ignorance.
I did already mention how advocates are already pushing to change the laws concerning age of consent. Once they win that little bit of incremental ism then it is just two consenting adults again isn’t it.
Deviants work on many fronts in order to accomplish their goals. First you accept one set of behavior and before you know it you will adjust to others.
If you can call two consenting adults deviants, then you better be able to handle being called a bigot.
Again genius, age of consent has gone UP since our founding… there have been those who wish to turn us into a theocracy, but they’re numbers are not great enough to do it. Your screaming about a minority defending something as awful as pedophilia is no different. You are fear mongering… nothing less.
The one behavior we accepted that started all of this is institutional (governmental) discrimination. That’s where we screwed up and we’ve been trying to get over it ever since.
Who are these advocates and do they have anything to do with gay rights?
And why won’t you answer the question that fwteagles asked?
He asked the question in 3 different places in this thread and I answered in one of them. Do you expect me to go to each and answer?
As for the advocates they have nothing to do with gay rights but that is neither here nor there. The end result is our children of both sexes will be legal so does that or does that not change the definition of pedophilia?
Why are you so dead set on connecting pedophilia with gay marriage. I see no other reason why you would bring it up in this comment section. Your arguments are getting more irrational by the minute.
It’s the usual: when you can’t come up with a logical argument against something, either pretend it itself is somehow harmful to children or insist that it will cause something else that is. The less logical connection, of course, the louder and more frequently you have to say it’s there.
I only mentioned that they are both sexual perversions in the nature of man. You are born to love the same sex according to you. Are you claiming that someone who only loves children wasn’t born that way?
If they were born that way shouldn’t they have the right to love whom they choose?
You claim it hurts children but they claim children understand what they are consenting too.
Etc……………
You just don’t like the connection because you don’t wish to be the same as those people.
Were some people born to love only dogs and horses as well and does a tale wagging indicate consent as they might claim?
So many rights we may have to grant and so many special people we may have to protect it is just over whelming.
The problem you have is you want your perversion of our nature to be special because you were born to love a certain aged human. What makes you better than the pervert born another way?
What makes me better is that I am in a CONSENTING relationship with an ADULT! Are you really that stupid?
Your argument is really that of someone who cannot admit that they are wrong and will keep spewing off vitriol hoping to find someone who will agree with them, to help validate their opinion.
I will not deny who I am to please people like you. I will not live a lie because you want me to. I will not tolerate being compared to a pedophile.
Have fun trying to twist my life and others into a lie, to bring comfort to yourself. If you really need that to be happy and secure in your beliefs, then you are truly pathetic.
I know it’s a distraction and nothing more, but what examples do you have of anyone currently trying to lower the age of consent in the United States?
Not a distraction at all since it has been stated repeatedly in these forums that this subject and pedo/beast subjects have nothing in common because the other two are illegal involving consent issues. My point is laws get changed to make things legal and then all of you get together to change public opinion to attempt to convince people over time that there is now nothing immoral about the acts.
You could do a simple google search on your own to see the history of consent reform efforts and who has been behind them but since I know you have no interest in history and will probably say it has nothing to do with the present whats the sense of it right?
Anyway I’ll save you a little work.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Age_of_consent_reform
Your point will be “but they aren’t doing it today” and I will say “yeah but only because they now know they have to do baby steps”, I will also point out that Pedo advocates and others used to be part of the effort with your groups and you will say “history doesn’t matter nah nah nah” blah blah blah and we will go back and forth with the only real point being that you don’t want people to look back and see the incremental ism and where you and yours are trying to take us.
Just a matter of time.
Do you really not see the difference between “I disagree with your claims” and “I don’t understand your claims?”
If you can’t make an argument without changing the issue then you haven’t made an argument at all. Homosexuality isn’t pedophilia. There is no victim in homosexuality. Your comparisons are stupid.
Not a comparison at all and you inability to grasp the fact that our moral sets of values are being pushed from all fronts is what is stupid.
This group wants you to accept their individual deviancy as normal and the other groups want you to give a little bit on the age issue so that they can soon be accepted as just another form of love. Once they figure out how to convince you that a dog wagging it’s tail implies consent there will be no end to the things those of you who stand for nothing will accept.
Read your history and learn what comes before each nation’s collapse. Educate yourself.
If you think our country is so weak that allowing others to have equal rights is enough to make it topple — yes, your ideas are in fact the stupid ones.
Then fight against those things. Don’t fight against two consenting adults enjoying the same civil rights as other Americans because you are fearful of things that won’t happen.
After all, bestiality and pedophilia have not been legalized after same sex marriage is allowed, anywhere, ever.
It’s all just a cause waiting for a definition isn’t it?
After all, change the legal age of consent and you change who is and who isn’t a pedophile.
Define how an animal grants consent and the issues against bestiality go away as well right?
Once those issues are squared away you guys can all start coming on here and calling us bigots for not adjusting to the new forms of consenting love too.
Lowering moral standards repeatedly over time only leads in one direction.
If these were actual, legitimate concerns… wouldn’t we have seen it happen somewhere already? Gay marriage has been legal in other nations for quite awhile, and legal in other states of our nation for years now.
Answer— your concerns here are disingenuous, flawed, and wrong.
Are you claiming we have seen no ill affects as a nation due to a lowering of moral standards in this country?
I would think that might be a pretty easy argument for you to lose.
“Gay Rights” is only one of the many fronts leading to the same place for us.
Come on man!!! Give us ONE rational, legal argument in your favor.
No more cries of mythology… no more cries of personal morality… see, NEITHER of those will hold up for you in court, and you are, therefore, destined to lose.
What do you have?
If you don’t accept the social evidence around you how can anything I say convince you?
This is not a legal issue, no matter that it will be the way you eventually destroy this country. It is a moral issue. Laws are based on what a moral society will accept and a country is built on that moral foundation. You can and will change the laws of this country and the definitions of right and wrong in this country as you have said. But I felt it was also important for you to understand what your agenda is doing to this country.
Look around you.
So you are touting an unmeasureable feeling you have as “proof”… Do you have any actual examples, or is this just a “kids these days have no respect for their elders” kind of argument?
If you push too hard, he’ll just spout the usual lies and distortions about Ocean Grove Fish Camp and whatever.
What social evidence? You’ve not shown me one thing. It is a legal issue… it deals with treatment of citizens under government. As a legal issue, your individual moral choices don’t apply. If what you say about laws were true, then being gay would still be a crime. It’s not. So what does that tell you about your view on where laws come from sweetie? you’re wrong.
You CANNOT show where “my kind” is taking America down… I’ve asked repeatedly, but you refuse to cough anything up.
Because you know in your heart it’s a sham. A lie.
Look around you. You live in the greatest time period in history in regards to health, science, liberty, overall achievements of mankind.
You wanna go back to the dark ages of this nation where you could keep a woman from working outside the home, go for it. The rest of us will continue to fight for what is right for ALL citizens.
PS: I am indeed telling you that we have seen no ill affects as a nation due to a lowering of moral standards in this country. That is a matter of opinion only, and as Lawrence v. Texas points out, is an invalid reason for discrimination under the government.
If you can’t see what you have done and you can’t see what you are doing I sure can’t convince you. Have you tried watching the news?
Every day. But I still have NO clue what you’re blaming me for.
What have gay citizens done that is so harmful for America? How have we led to any negative state you claim to see (and since the biggest problems are fiscal and international, I really wanna see you blame those on me).
I’m not asking you to convince me. I’m asking you to show me what you call harm caused by gay citizens.
Don’t give yourself so much credit. The harm is caused by this incremental moral decay. You and yours are just one of the fairly minor symptoms. We won’t make it as long as the Roman Empire at this rate.
ROFLOL!!! The Roman Empire? You mean the one that fell after Christians became so numerous (among other numerous real causes of it’s decline)?
Oh my god… didn’t get to much history in college did you?
You cannot show this harm you keep harping about… that says enough.
Do huh?
I can see that we have gathered signatures to get the issue of marriage equality on the ballot again.
I can see that you disagree with the idea that gay Mainers should be allowed to protect the families they build with civil marriage rights.
Have you tried reading the judicial rulings in favor of marriage equality to see why this is a valid civil right to extend to all citizens?
Could you please answer my question from earlier? If heterosexual marriage doesn’t lead to man-girl/woman-boy relationships, why would it be different for homosexual ones?
I did answer your question. Maybe if you didn’t ask the same exact question in 3 different places you could see the answer I gave. Or were you expecting an answer 3 times?
You didn’t answer the question, you avoided it. You explained it away by citing a general moral decay. You did not explain how, if following your logic, that since gay marriage leads to pedophilia, why doesn’t straight marriage do the same. You did not answer that. You avoided answering that question every single time and it’s pretty obvious why. You don’t have a real answer.
OK, one last time.
No where in here did I say that gay marriage leads to pedophilia.
You said that.
I said that homosexuality and pedophilia and bestiality are all the same. Simple perversions. Someone way back this morning claimed they were different because of laws and I mentioned that laws can be changed just as they have been for gay sex thereby making things legal where they were not before. Changing the age of consent changes the definition of pedophilia and changing what consists of consent changes the laws affecting Bestiality. So what you said would never happen becomes legal and then now is ok. Just like with homosexuality.
If you wish to quote me than do so but don’t make up crap based off of what you pull out of your own head. What’s in there isn’t up to the task.
OK. Good to know. Rather than an argument, you put forth a bare-faced lie (“homosexuality and pedophilia and bestiality are all the same.”)
Good to know what we’re dealing with here: someone who doesn’t know the difference between a man or woman, a child, and a member of some other species.
You forgot one. I also don’t believe you should be able to marry your butt plug.
I’m sure you’ll fight for that right at some point in the future too though so carry on.
The more you explain your views, the better our support gets. Please keep this up!
…illustrating my point nicely, thank you.
(I’ve never even *seen* one of those.)
He’s got a valid question… I’m sure that’s burning you up.
I am claiming we have seen no ill efffects as a nation due to same-sex marriage, yes. Ditto for the repeal of Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell.
All in all, our nation is safer now than in the past. I know it’s hard to believe when you sit glued to the television watching all the coverage of the crimes that DO occur, but the overall crime rates in this nation are lower than they’ve been in ages.
“lowering of moral standards” is a subjective thing. We disagree, not on whether bad morals are bad, but on whether gay rights are an example of bad morals.
There are no ill effects from gay rights. There are, in my opinion, some unfortunate consequences to the methods of opposition to gay rights, including driving people, especially young people, away from church. But from treating gay people as the generally-as-good-as-anyone-else sort we are, no, no ill effects whatsoever.
Fear monger. The age of consent has gone UP in America since it’s founding, not down.
You have NOTHING legal or rational to base your discrimination on… you will lose.
It’s not fear mongering if you attempt to get others to look at history and what has happened in the past to other nations once they allow their moral foundations to collapse.
As for the “you will lose” comment, I believe we all will lose in the end as will our children and their children once you and yours have destroyed this once strong nation.
I have nothing personally at stake here, other than the same future you share in.
Yes it is. The “doom & gloom” scenario you keep harping on exists to YOU, not to everyone. I for one think our nation has socially grown better for the changes since it’s founding.
The only thing destroying this nation is people like you who spout emotion and vitriol as if it were fact, and then expect the government to come save you because of your unsavory emotions. It’s akin to fascism, and has no basis in reality.
How your pet social issues are to blame for the downfall of a nation is beyond me. It makes no rational sense whatsoever. It may have created a world you don’t wish to be in, but you’re not the only one here, and EVERYONE deserves an equal shake, not just the people you like.
This “moral foundation” you speak of kept women and minorities from voting… kept men from serving their nation as more than servants to other men… kept men as slaves… kept women from working outside the home… that “moral foundation” is harmful and has rightly been done away with.
I look forward to this great new future we share in. I look back with great regret.
Our moral foundation was not based on slavery. There were very few legitimate slave owners in this country, probably about the same percentage as there are gays now but somehow that seems to be what you consider the norm rather than the exception. Would you say the drunks represent our moral character rather than the sober members of our society as well? Maybe the druggies represent what you see of america rather than our hardworking people?
Right and wrong are pretty simple concepts and as you blur the line you also destroy what we are. I’m pretty sure that those who tried to warn others in history were told to stop with the gloom and doom as well.
I don’t expect anything I’ve said here to change your opinion as you obviously have a personal stake in this. I don’t but I will still vote my conscience and resist the erosion in the little ways I can.
Drunks and druggies… if you honestly think that’s what being gay is like, then you’re just too dumb. That’s all there is to it.
Tried to stop WHAT?! Drunks and druggies have ALWAYS been here my friend! You suffer from an OUTSTANDING bit of “Nostalgia for an age that never existed”…
You have yet to demonstrate any harm caused by gay citizens as a whole… you only focus on the smallest percentage. Much like comparing all Christians to those who kill their kids in the name of god.
Who said that was what being gay was like?
I don’t think you are able to follow a train of thought here. Try rereading what you posted and then what I answered.
PS: You can deny it all you want… but it’s that SAME “moral foundation” that you want back so badly that allowed the items I pointed out… you can’t pick and choose you know. It’s all part of the SAME mindset. A mindset we’ve been correcting from for a very long time.
Treating fellow Americans with dignity and respect and allowing them to protect their families as you can does not erode anything except bigotry and prejudice.
You really want to look at history and see what happens when those like you who profess to be on the moral high ground have absolute power? Look up “The Dark Ages” in a history book. You will love it, no free thought, do as we say or die, and don’t worry about the advancement of society, because without free thought there wasn’t any. Society stagnated for hundreds of years. Its people who think like you that put Galileo in prison fro saying the Sun was the center of our universe, not the Earth. He was imprisoned for those “immoral” views.
Actually the period you cite is from another extreme. With out balance we end up with either end of the chaotic spectrum. Moral decay is no better than moral stagnation but anything goes does not mean automatic progress.
Where will you actually draw the line?
The line is drawn at victimizing individuals.
Something consenting adult relations is not doing.
And here we are. Back at the definition of consent and adult.
Kind of a round robin isn’t it.
Because it’s true. You asked where the line is, I showed you.
You cannot demonstrate victimization by gays on our society… you cannot show harm to our society by gays as a whole.
I don’t much care for that approach; what came before the Roman Empire’s collapse was official acceptance of Christianity. I’d hate to think that was the cause, and I’m sure you don’t mean to be suggesting it.
I assume you meant to imply that accepting homosexuality leads to collapse, but history doesn’t show that in the least.
In the meantime: separate issues are just that. That there may be *some* arguments for one that can also be used for the other does not even mean that those arguments apply equally well, much less that there are not *other* reasons to deny one that do not apply to the other.
If you cannot think of any reason to oppose molesting children that does not also apply to gay couples having sex, much less merely getting married which is really all that’s in question as the sex is allowed regardless, then you have bigger problems.
Hey big guy…
So, what is your rational legal argument against gay marriage? And comparing us to those that harm children won’t hold up in court, so keep that one to yourself.
What do you have that will stand in a court of law?
Love the post, but remember your adversary… words like rational and reasonable do not really go hand in hand with Christianity.
“Rational arguments don’t usually work on religious people, otherwise there wouldn’t be religious people.”
And that’s why I say “legal”… if the argument won’t stand up in court, rationality and reason are not part of the argument.
Good point, but again, with their idea of the moral high ground even legal means little to them. Think about it, how “legal” is it to firebomb an abortion clinic?
Dane is right you know…
No, I don’t suppose I will ever understand how my getting married would affect your life in any way.
And you should know that “what the voters want” does not matter when their wants go against our Constitutional protections. This is why interracial marriage was made legal nationwide even though a majority of Americans disagreed. Ditto for desegregation.
Please be so kind as to quantify “we”. Thank you.
Looks like at least one more…..
As many as it takes. How long did it take blacks, women and other minorities to get equal rights?
Until it passes and all Maine people are afforded the same CIVIL RIGHTS….and if YOU don’t want THAT here……don’t have a gay marriage…..your problem is solved. Pfffffft.
Ok, I am still trying to work this one out. I got my marriage license from the town office, i dont recall if there was a state seal on it or not, but i still got it from a government. Since the government has laws preventing people from being discriminated against based on race, creed, gender, religion, or sexual orientation (i.e. they can’t deny a fishing license to someone based on the fact they are a woman, or deny a parking permit because you are asian, etc) how is it “illegal” for gay people to marry? Isn’t it more illegal for the state to deny the license strictly based on sexual orientation? Or am i just being naive? I understand that religious leaders, (pastors, priests, rabbi’s, etc.) should also be allowed to refuse to do the ceremony because of their beliefs, but judges and J.O.P.’s are public servants so they should have to do them, again because as a public servant they can’t discriminate. I am for gay marriage in the interest of equality, I mean why shouldn’t they be as miserable as the rest of us?
As many as it takes to end the extension of special rights to straight people.
We do want that here. How does our right to marriage affect you in any way?
Didn’t the voters soundly decide this issue two years ago? And that’s with the homosexual movement outspending those against 3-1. Even with the liberal, heavily populated, southern Maine coming out in force they couldn’t win.
Even in California the people voted gay marriage down. It was overturned by the courts there, which are ultra liberal.
If you think a 6% difference is sound, which I certainly do not. Just wait and see how many young people come out to vote in the 2012 presidential election, and you will likely see that 6% change.
Exactly.. especially on an issue which, every year, shows a 1-3% movement, always in the same direction.
Of course, motivation plays a part as well. Those against are so insistent on believing the lies they’ve been told, full of scary stuff about gay marriage bringing down civilization, that they’re more likely to show up than those with more rational views. But even at that, if it doesn’t pass this time, it will be closer, and pass the next go-round… if the Supreme Court hasn’t made it national by then anyway.
Apparently you are not interested in history? Groups fighting for equal rights and equality in the history of this country did not stop after one defeat or two or three. They didn’t stop until their goals were met. This is no different.
Nope.
i do not fell this is an issue that should be voted on, if in the south years ago if civil rights were put up to a vote there would still be segragation.
I agree wholeheartedly. In the end, the votes will not matter.
Those against gay marriage have never put forth a rational legal argument for their views, and without one, they will lose in court.
The state should try to get an amendment to the state’s constitution. Otherwise, this topic will end up at the polls year after year until the gay marriage advocates get their wish. I really think if something is voted down, it should not be able to just be on the next ballot.
I agree, it doesnt matter what the topic. The issue should not be allowed back on the ballot for five years. The same thing happened with the casino. It was on the ballot every year until it went through. Let give some other things a chance to be voted on and not the same thing year in and year out.
OK would the same thing go at a town meeting that the issuse could not be brought till the next ballot ?
ROFLOL!!! Good luck! You have proven by your numbers when you recalled marriage equality that you have nowhere near the number of votes for an amendment to the state constitution.
It will be on all ballots necessary to pass… until such time as the federal government does what is right and extends the special rights that straight people get to all law abiding citizens.
The US Supreme Court needs to rule on this and extend marriage equality to all 50 states, as they did with interracial marriage before. That would trump any state that is mean spirited enough to codify discrimination of a minority population.
Clicks were down at BDN. Get them up by putting the most popular controversial stories to drive responses.
I don’t understand why anyone would be against everyone sharing equal rights. It’s time Maine stepped up to the plate and reaffirmed what the founding fathers said when they created the US: “We are all created equal”. It’s also high time to get the government out of telling us what we can do with our private lives. Please, let us vote for equality in marriage once and for all and be done with it.
Look around you. Every single state and province surrounding Maine allows gays to marry. I don’t want Maine to continue to be an island of intolerance. It won’t make one wit of difference to any straight person or their marraige but it will go a long way to make the tens of thousands of Maine residents who are gay feel and actually be equal. C’mon folks – we’re talking about love here. Let love live!
It’s out of fear
” Passage of the law in New York marked the first time such a measure, (ANY OTHER CIVIL RIGHTS BILL,
EVER ????), has been approved in a state where Republicans control either legislative chamber.”
The vote was close this time around so don’t say it was a overwhelming majority .
Valid point… the “overwhelming” part is wingnut beating of the chest, and nothing more.
Yes every time it come up more people state to vote for it because the know they have nothing to fear
It is time for marriage equality. Personally, I don’t believe we should be voting on another person’s civil rights. We didn’t vote to approve equal rights for black or interracial couples, and shouldn’t have to for gay people either. If this issue has to be voted on, I am glad most people now see it as an issue of EQUAL rights, and not special rights. No religious institution will be forced to marry a gay couple, under any circumstance, so the bible thumpers can throw that argument out the window. This is about having all the legal benefits of marriage, which includes taxes, insurance, adoption, and so on. No one should be able to tell our children that our families are not every bit as good and equal as a straight family. A lot of people could benefit from watching the press conference held by the Washington State Governor on marriage equality there.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_embedded&v=LJu6MA_wF7o
My partner and I have been together more years than most straight marriages last, and we both look forward to the day that we will be able to have the same legal recognition of our family as any other. Hopefully more people open their minds and hearts this November.
With each passing year, the public moves towards accepting gay and lesbian people as equal. This is the natural course of democracy. This is what the civil rights struggles of the 1960s taught us as a people. This is what suffrage taught us. This is what emancipation taught us. When we expand the reality of equality to include more of our citizens, the nation grows stronger. The promise of liberty and justice for all becomes truer.
The Constitution and Declaration of Independence speak to equality directly. They both offered promises that were not kept in the early days of the republic. As we have grown as a people, these early faults have been corrected on by one. History has been a one directional arrow pointing the way towards inclusion of more diverse populations. With this issue we are confronted with another decision. Do we stand on the shoulders of the great men and women who broadened our social contract and do our part to progress or do we shirk our responsibility to the country and allow the bigotry and bias of our past to remain a part of our laws?
With each successive attempt, support grows. With each generation, the barriers to realizing our destiny crumble. With each heart that is touched by the love that two people of the same sex share, our future becomes more hopeful. This fight is the civil rights struggle of our time. It will take several or even many attempts to perfect our laws but this is the time and this is the cause that future generations will judge us by. Stand firm for America’s enduring values for equality and let’s create a more just and honorable legacy. The next generation will not understand what took us so long.
Support grows because those who fight against it get tired of fighting, not because they accept or support homosexual marriage. You speak of the Constitution and the Declaration of Independence. You also speak of Democracy. We aren’t a Democracy, we are a constitutionally limited republic founded on Judeao-Christian principles. Read the Declaration of Independence and see that God is in fact referenced three times: God, Creator, and Supreme Judge of the world. Most of the Founders would not have considered themselves Christian in the traditional sense, but almost all of them had a God-consciousness and at least knew the difference between right and wrong. If you read any of the surrounding documents, such as the Federalist Papers, you know that the Founders never intended liberty without righteousness, morality, and personal responsibility. Without those things liberty becomes anarchy.
Sure they get tired of fighting. That is absurd. You are trying to convince me that ideology and theology lay down from being overtaxed in their self-defense.
Please spare me that sad story.
BTW, the founders God consciousness was that they believed in a God of Nature, not a God of man. They did not believe in Jesus, they did not believe in divine intervention and they did not believe that religion was the core of morality.
I do not need to have any concept of God to know right from wrong.
Really? Some were Deists. Some were Theists. Some were Bible Christians. They certainly believed in a God of man, a Supreme Judge, and the Christians most certainly believed in Jesus and divine intervention and a righteous God. You change history, or ignore it, because you don’t like it.
Ideology does lay down from being overtaxed in self-defense. I am staunchly opposed to gay marriage, and homosexuality in general, but I’m also sick of dealing with it from a voting perspective. Not that I won’t vote against it. It’s hard to keep the fervency at a fever-pitch, when most people are worried about their job, mortgage, living in general. The pro-gay crowd is very well aware of that. If they keep hammering long enough, they will get what they want. Theology lays down for other reasons.
By the way, how do you, or anyone, determine right from wrong?
Gays are worried about the same things. Their jobs, mortgage, living in general. Difference is, they don’t get the same rights and protections that us straight married folks do. They pay more in taxes than the rest of us because they can’t get married — yet they’re just like us, just trying to live and have a family. You sick of dealing with this? Imagine how sick they are of the inequality.
With time, we have seen again and again what is truly right and wrong. Many were against interracial marriage, for example, citing religious beliefs, and believed with just as much passion and sincerity that they were the right ones while others were morally wrong. We know how time has treated those individuals.
How do you ‘see’ what is truly right and wrong? How do you determine right and wrong? Is it determined by the the individual? The government? What?
You’ve already articulated that you’re against homosexuality, so answer your own question. You’ve already complained about taxes, so answer why you think gays should have to pay more than you do — simply because you believe you’re morally superior to them? Answer why you think you’re in a position to determine the rights of strangers that impact you in such an insignificant way (mere annoyance as you’ve stated).
If you are telling us that you are incapable of telling right from wrong without looking it up in your religious texts, I think that says more about your moral center than it does about the necessity of your religious texts.
How do you determine right and wrong? That’s a simple question. No one I’ve asked on here will answer. They either ignore it, or attack my position. I know how I do. I go to the Bible. I know I won’t get a straight (no pun intended) answer from you. You will simply attack my position. That’s fine.
LOL… can’t live without that buy-bull huh? You’d be out boozing it up, smoking meth, and chasing girls after Sunday school, huh?
Wrong comes from within, and is different from person to person. I think teaching kids to have faith in invisible friends instead of themselves is wrong, but you obviously don’t.
And it will always be that way. The golden rule is all one needs. One does not need an entire religion. That’s as straight an answer as I can give you.
So, if wrong is determined from within, why is it wrong for you, or anyone else to kill someone or rape someone or steal from someone? If you don’t think it’s wrong, then it isn’t, right?
By the way, where do you think the Golden Rule came from? That’s right, the ‘buy-bull’.
“And as ye would that men should do to you, do ye also to them likewise.” Luke 6:31
And that’s my point. You said your guide is the Golden Rule, which is Bible based. If your guide to right and wrong is from within, then it most assuredly isn’t.
Actually, Joseph Campbell has identified the golden rule teachings in most major religions and mythologies.
Because it victimizes them. It is an outright act of hostility against another.
Do you really need your buy-bull to tell you that? Really?
And no toots, the “golden rule” can be found in one form or another in most mythologies… your buy-bull did not invent it. You give your mythology (stolen from many mythologies) too much credit.
I won’t argue whether the Bible is the source of the saying or not. It doesn’t matter in this argument. You made my point. On one hand you say that wrong comes from within, and is different for everybody. On the other hand you say you go by the Golden Rule, which according to you, comes from mythology; the point being that you say you’re guided by an external guide: the Golden Rule. Individual definitions of right and wrong and the Golden Rule cannot mutually coexist.
The point is that if everybody does that which is right in his own eyes, i.e. “Wrong comes from within, and is different from person to person”, then the world would be a scary place. Right and wrong is not derived from your, or my, definition of it, but from an external source. If we’re just animals that have arrived here through natural selection-survival of the fittest-then the Golden Rule has no place in our world. In fact, that concept would be non-existent. Look at the animal kingdom. It doesn’t exist there. The strong eat the weak. There is no concept of right and wrong. According to your philosophy-I assume you’re an atheist-we’re nothing more than animals. Right and wrong doesn’t exist in the evolutionary model; morality is relative.
You don’t like the Bible because it tells you what you can and can’t do. It does tell us what’s right and wrong. When it’s all boiled down, that’s your problem isn’t it? You don’t like the concept of God because if there is a Creator, then that means He owns everything, and that you and I are responsible to Him.
I want to leave the world better off than when I arrived. I want to be a positive influence in the lives I come in contact with.
I need no bible to feel this way, but I challenge you to say that my view here isn’t a moral one.
Edited to add: You should look up some good books on moral philosophy. If you think the Bible is the end-all-be-all of moral teachings, you must not be aware of the vast majority of writings and teachings both before and after that book.
A man who cannot determine right from wrong without his mythology is a dangerous man, because without his mythology he cannot make said determination. He lacks reason and control, and will harm someone.
So much of what’s right and what’s wrong is unprovable, and so much based in beliefs that are individual, that it makes sense to keep our civil laws based on treating all such positions evenly except where absolutely necessary for public safety. And there’s certainly no such reason to stop gay couples’ getting marriage licenses.
The deists did not believe in a God of man and they were by far the greatest in number and influence.
As for your being sick of it, worry not! We will get this done within a few years and you will be free to continue to live inside your homophobic bubble and I will not have to pay more than my share to support you in that.
I find it amusing that you won’t answer the ‘right or wrong’ question. What basis do you use for determining right and wrong? Do you determine right? The government, maybe they do. Do the strong determine what’s right and wrong? Is anything absolutely wrong…or right?
The deists did believe in a Creator, a God of, and creator of man. Interestingly, they believed it on rational grounds, not based on special revelation. They didn’t believe that He intervened into the affairs of men or nature. Apparently there were enough who believed that there would be a judgment as well, as that title was interjected into the Declaration of Independence. Nevertheless, God and religion played a very large part in the founding of our country and its documents.
My basis for right and wrong is pretty simple. If what I do harms another, it is wrong. If I take advantage of someones weakness for my own gain, that is wrong. If I damage my own reputation or that of my family or others I care about through my actions, that was wrong.
If I promote love and justice and fairness, that is right. If I make another persons life or even day better by helping them, that is right.
I really do not need to subscribe to the dictates of organized religion to find my way in the world. I have no need for religion to inform what I should or should not do. Humans have reflective consciousness. It allows us to think about what we do and what consequences resulted from those actions. It really needs no religion to happen. In my estimation, religion helps those with limited world views feel safe and secure with their own lives and mortality. I embrace the fact that one day I will no longer breathe and will return to the earth to become a part of whatever I become a part of. The stories make the unknowable less scary but I am not scared with or without them. I guess I just got lucky that I am comfortable in my own skin and do not require help to find meaning or purpose in this world. I love people and that love comes back to me. No supreme power needed. I have spent a lot of my life in service to others and derive much from helping others. That doesn’t require indoctrination either. My father was a “devout” atheist. I studied religion on my own. I have read the entire Bible. I have attended bible studies and church services. For me, a walk in the woods does as much to restore my perspective as a day in church might for others.
AS for the founders, they were equally concerned with freedom FROM religion as they were freedom OF religion. I have read their works and letters extensively as well. Only John Jay devoutly followed Jesus, but he wanted the Catholics banished!
Why is love, justice and fairness right? Who determined that those are qualities that are good. What basis do you use to determine that? There are those in this world who take what they want by force, and would consider that right and fair. Love, to them, is nothing but sentimental drivel. Why are they wrong? After all, we are products of natural selection, correct? The strong survive, and might is right. If this life is all there is, then right is me taking what I want to satisfy my desires and goals regardless of what anyone else thinks, feels, or wants; because when I die my chance is gone. Everyone should do what’s right in their own eyes.
History proves where that leads.
No, I believe the Bible tells us what is right. Since you’ve read it extensively, you know exactly where I’m coming from.
I have no use for it. I know those things are right because my actions following those tenets have met with approval by the majority I have dealt with. Objective reality. AS human kind living in a developed culture, we do not need the fairy tales to navigate by. We each possess the ability to even see beyond what the laws tell us is right or wrong. That can be said for Gods laws as you would contend or mans laws.
Shared values can thrive without any help from religion. One of the most peaceful and productive societies in the world has a ban on religious worship. Harmony is sought and that keeps order. China is a great case study in social progress without religion.
I wasn’t going to post again, but your comment on China is out to lunch.
I’ve been in China. My parents lived over there for three years in both Harbin and Beijing. Dissidents of whatever flavor are thrown in prison. Bible Christians meet in house churches for fear of being discovered. When they are they go to jail. They sing in hushed tones so the neighbors won’t hear. I’ve seen it first-hand. I personally know a Chinese man who spent 10 years in jail because he’s a Christian. In Harbin, I lived in a building with communal heat that was turned off at night and barely worked during the day. It never got above 50 degrees inside. Coal dust was everywhere. This in a city of ten million. That was the norm. Many in tenant buildings use communal holes in the floors for toilets. I’ve been in the countryside and seen firsthand the desperate poverty, the lack of food, the desperation. What China projects in the media is propaganda. They rigidly control every aspect of life there, and if you disagree, you disappear. If that’s your idea of social progress without religion, you can have it.
I have been to China as well. My point was not to use China as a model….really, thats absurd on it’s face. I simply made the point that China has undergone the most significant and rapid social transformation the world has ever seen. Are they on par with democracies in the west on human rights, not even close. They have moved from an agrarian economy to a manufacturing economy in just two decades time. The changes are evident in every aspect of Chinese life.
I have not been to China since the late 90’s. I was intrigued at the numerous dualities that were evident everywhere I looked.
Dissidents are treated badly, usually killed. Here we only injure and maim ours.
There is now more and more dissidence though. Microblogs have been gaining a foothold in spite of the governments efforts to thwart them.
China will see an attempt at revolution withing the next decade. Social networking and technology will make the next one harder to put down than Tienanmen was, much harder.
Still, the Chinese have managed to live in harmony with over 1.2Billion people. those people have no religion to teach them cultural values or ethics. In the modern world we simply do not need those things.
Perhaps Japan would have made a better point. The vast majority there are agnostic. They have a very low crime rate. They have dissidents. they have disenfranchised youth. They have a functional society. they don’t rely on religion to teach the people how to get along.
The Bible alone cannot tell us right from wrong; there are too many (apparent, at least) discrepancies. It takes interpretation, whether done yourself or learned from others, to get the morals you do from it, what to keep and what to declare obsolete, what to take as a positive example and what to see as events that were wrong, etc.
That doesn’t mean it’s invalid to do so. But it’s one more reason not to impose *anyone’s* interpretations on those who disagree, even if the fact that many don’t subscribe to it at all were not enough.
But who’s to say what from the Bible a person takes and believes, and what they toss aside? Personally, I feel that the Bible is the sort of book where you can’t do that. You can’t just toss aside the parts you don’t like so that it fits your lifestyle. What’s in there is there for a reason. That’s just my opinion, though.
You’re making my point for me, though it’s hard to tell whether that’s intentional or otherwise.
I’m not saying that parts should be tossed aside. But everyone who takes the Bible seriously treats some parts of it differently than others. And the basis for that cannot be *solely* the Bible itself. It’s also an area open to disagreement, as evidenced by, say, the entire history of Christianity :)
And if even Christians cannot agree on everything, then as I said, that’s all the more reason none of it should be put onto those who don’t believe it in the first place.
(For the record, I’m firmly Christian. I’m also gay, and disbelieve claims that the two are mutually exclusive, partly on the grounds that I exist. I also disbelieve claims that gay relationships, as sometimes exist in modernity, a parallel at least to recognized-good straight relationships, are automatically sinful. But even if I believed otherwise, I wouldn’t want the *government* to make that judgment. There are even other areas where things I believe definitely to be wrong ought nonetheless to be legal, and that they would cause much less harm legal than outlawing them does. But that’s going far astray.)
I don’t have the space to discuss Bible interpretation with you. You take the Bible like you take any book: literally. One also interprets scripture with scripture. It means what it says and it says what it means. I could show you many passages that deal with the subject at hand, as in Romans 1 or 2 Peter 3, that leave no room for doubt or error about what is being said.
I’ll leave you with one verse on interpreting the Bible: 2 Peter 1: 20-21 “Knowing this first, that no prophecy of the scripture is of any private interpretation…..” We aren’t to interpret the Bible so that it conveniently fits our ideas and notions.
As I said, it’s pretty far off topic. Nonetheless, if you truly agree that accepting Christ is what makes one Christian, then those who disagree with you on all manner of other things, yet agree on that, remain Christians.
Thinking on this some more, it might be worthwhile to bring up Romans 14, since you seem the sort to like references. (I’m not sure what you meant by referring to 2 Peter 3; I don’t see much room for error on that either, but neither do I see any relevant references.)
2 Peter 3: 3 “Knowing this first, that there shall come in the last days scoffers, walking after their own lusts…”
That describes most of the posters on this forum, either for or against homosexuality, when the Bible is brought up. The Bible speaks against sin in general and doesn’t just single out homosexuality. Hatred, lying, stealing, murder, adultery, false witness, disobedience….The Bible says that all of those things are wrong. That’s why most people, whether homosexual or not, don’t like it.
Read the rest of the chapter. It’s too long to quote here.
We are to love one another. The mark of a true bible Christian is exhibiting godly love. Not an emotion, or feeling, but the giving of oneself for another. Christ was the ultimate example by willingly giving Himself for our sins. Christ died for our sins. Mine, yours. The Bible says that ‘there is none good, no not one.’ We’re all in the same boat.
God hates sin, but loves the sinner. That’s why Christ came, to provide a way that a holy and just God would accept: A perfect Substitute for us. These things are all found in the Bible.
I don’t hate homosexuals, it is what the Bible condemns as sin that I don’t like. Anyone who would hurt a homosexual, beat them, tease them, or otherwise persecute them for who they are is wrong. Any professing Christian who would condone that behavior towards another human being doesn’t understand God or the Bible. The Bible condemns my sin, but God, in His grace, has provided the path to forgiveness. It is only through God’s gracious gift of His Son, not anything that I am, or have done, that I am saved.
Sorry. Your god is not our civil law. You’re welcome to it, but in America, it’s on equal terms with Scientology, Islam, and FSM. None of which are civil law.
There is nothing in how we run our country that is explicitly Christian.
There is no religious test for holding office, nor is there any religious requirement for civil marriage.
left wing agendas have caused the decline in the U.S. This will just help hasten the fall .It is sad to see people that need help only get enabled.
Divorce rates make it obvious that the biggest threat to “marriage” is heterosexuals . . .
I don’t believe that a gay marriage is any more valid, or any more sinful, than an unwed man and woman living together. That being said, why should the state, or federal government, have anything to say about marriage at all? If two people, regardless of who they are attracted to, or lust after, want to have some type of legal standing in regard to their relationship, then get a lawyer and have a document drafted that addresses whatever it is you’re concerned about. Marriage in this country is largely based in Christianity, whether you’re a Christian or not. All I know is that my wife and I exchanged vows before God, family, and friends. That’s good enough for me.
It is the civil marriage license we are fighting for, religious marriage ceremonies are perfectly legal for same sex couples in the churches who allow for it.
There are over 1,300 federal rights and benefits contingent on martial status, and that is what we are denied by lack of access to civil marriage.
I don’t believe the government should be metering out these rights and benefits that are based on marriage. Marriage shouldn’t be any of the government’s damn business period, on any level. I have my views on relationships just like everybody does, but even if I disagree with the type of relationship you’re in, if it isn’t hurting me, then I could care less. The government should care less too, and therefore shouldn’t be involved in any way, shape, or form. I certainly don’t believe that I should be rewarded in any way because I’m married to a woman. On the other hand, if a private insurance company wants to deny insurance to somebody’s partner, or whatever you want to call them, then that’s their business. And, by the same token, if a private insurance company wants to make those benefits available, that should be their choice as well.
Well, the point here is they are metering out rights and benefits that are based on civil marriage. Therefore we either eliminate all of the government benefits of civil marriage (including social security spousal rights!), or we extend them equally to all citizens.
In all seriousness, I go with the eliminate option.
Get the signatures to put that on the ballot, or start suing your way to the Supreme Court, then! But don’t oppose the equality we are seeking in the meantime.
I’ll leave it at this: if whatever it is that you, or anybody, wants to do isn’t hurting somebody else, then I say go for it. I may not agree with it, but so what. I don’t condone our broken system of government. It’s beyond the tipping point, so I’m not going to play along with its procedural processes. What I oppose is government being involved in marriage and personal relationships, so I can’t oppose or support whatever kind of equality it is that you’re looking for because I don’t believe government belongs there to begin with. I believe this would also be your best route to pursue because the way you’re trying to accomplish things now is just going to keep leading to this back and forth with both sides regrouping and attacking again. Limit government, there’s your answer.
We didn’t eliminate government involvement with marriage back when interracial marriage was the issue, so I don’t think we’re going to go that route this time.
I don’t wish anyone harm either, I simply want the ability to protect the family I have built over the decades with the man I love. And everyone who knows us supports this because they can plainly see we are as much a family as any.
Even if that were true (and it’s not, or atheists couldn’t marry either), what about Christian churches who wish to marry gay couples?
I’m not sure which statement I made that you say is not true, but in regard to Christian churches who wish to perform gay marriages, I say they are Christian in name only.
Something about marriage being based in Christianity. And how, then, do you define Christian? I’ve been taught it meant one who accepted Jesus as lord and savior. Period, the end; no conditions about “oh, and you also have to agree with us on the correct interpretation and application of every verse in the Bible.”
Well, I do agree with you on the part about asking Jesus to be your Lord and Savior, but I have to disagree with you on the Bible. The Scriptures say of itself that “All Scripture is God breathed”, so it’s not a la carte where you can pick and choose the parts you agree with and discard those you don’t. I would also need to know which verses you might be referring to when you talk about interpretation and application.
All of it, in various ways. That’s way too broad a question to go into here.
A much narrower one: where do you get the idea that there *are* such caveats, such that one who has accepted Jesus is still not a Christian if they disagree over the meaning and usage of verses x, y, and z, particularly when those are not core issues along the lines of Jesus being God’s son?
I never said that there are such caveats as you put it, but in applying that to the basis of Christian faith, you can’t believe that any Scripture says something that would contradict that. You’re right though, too broad to really get into it here. I actually think that we might be on the same page on this and are either misinterpreting each other, or I’m just not doing a good job of making my point.
We definitely are not on the same page. You claimed it’s impossible to believe gay marriage is OK and be a real Christian at the same time. That *necessarily* negates accepting of Jesus as the only qualification.
It’s the old silent ‘but’ again: “…but if you’d *really* been saved then you’d also believe everything else the same as me.” Which is hogwash. There are faithful and true Christians on all sides of just about every issue. That includes gay relationships. It includes many who do not see a contradiction between evolution and creation; it includes those on both sides of disagreements over when and how to baptize; the meaning and format of communion and whether to use real wine or not; and so on and so on. The dividing line is “Jesus is Lord.” NOWHERE else. (No, I won’t get into where I stand on any of those. It’s irrelevant.)
And, if you believe your fellow Christians are in error, that may be reason for continued conversation on the matter, but it’s *never* an excuse to deny that we are Christians at all. Insulting people rarely makes them more willing to hear what you have to say, and you have precisely zero grounds for making that judgment anyway.
This is why I suggested (though I cannot now find where I did so, so perhaps that was someone else) Romans 14.
I apologize if this is inappropriate content for this forum. But it’s unbelievably frustrating to try to convince gay people who have been burned by church that not all Christians are like that, please give God a chance elsewhere… only to have the same false dichotomy thrown up again on the other side, so to speak.
For those who still insist that it is a choice to be gay, well this is the last argument that they have. Without the “choice” argument they have to OWN their fear, hate and intolerance, most are just not ready to do that, so they will keep pushing in a desperate attempt to try and justify their views.
Religion is a choice, and we do not prohibit Americans of any religion from getting wed.
There are a few that prevent themselves from marrying, but that’s different than imposing it by the state.
Imposing it? You mean, the state is going to force folks to get gay-married?
Or this… http://www.theonion.com/articles/new-hampshire-passes-law-forcing-old-people-to-wat,6770/
Of course not. There are religious sects that prohibit marriage, but the state doesn’t ban it on their account. There’s no reason expanding marriage to cover same-sex couples would or should be any different.
The law is written so that no church will be forced to perform such weddings.
My church WANTS to. Why should OUR religious freedom be denied???
Amen!
As long as discrimination is embraced, none of us are free.
80 Posts by 10Am. Let’s get it to 200 by Noon.
What a disappointment. Only 174 posts by Noon. Come on folks feed the fanaticism and post, post, post.
Yeah, who’d of thunk this topic wouldn’t be a hot one?!
Posts=Clicks=$$. Expect to see more of these stories.
Well, it does make sense that they would run stories that people want to read. If this generates a lot of interest, then why not follow it?
Not saying don’t read. Just making my observation.
BTW: 500+ Posts in less than 12 hours. Start cashing that advertising $$ check BDN
A marriage is between a man and a woman, the voters have voted said this time and time and time again. The previous administration tried to shove this down our throats and we the people said NO. Give it a rest, there is no need for anybody to have special rights just because they like the same sex. It will not happen in Maine, the voters said so over and over again.
We voted on it exactly once and it wasn’t vetoed by a large margin. Allowing others to have the same rights as you isn’t “special rights.” It isn’t “special” to be treated equally.
Either way, we can vote on this as many times as we want. Maine law allows for initiatives, so you’re just going to have to get over that.
Actually, no they haven’t. They have only voted to repeal marriage granted by the state. Maine voters have never voted on marriage equality otherwise. They have NEVER had a chance to vote no when asked if gays should marry. Your understanding of recent history is terrible.
And no… we will not give it a rest so that you can keep your special rights. Not gonna happen.
Um, no. The fight will continue until everyone has the same special rights you do bucko.
We are not asking for special rights, we are asking for the same rights heterosexual couples can gain simply by getting a civil marriage license.
There are over 1,300 federal rights and benefits contingent on marital status, it is unconstitutional to deny those rights to gay americans who want to wed.
As I have replied to other posters who refer to the will of “the voters”, you make no mention of the distinction between a majority and a plurality. That distinction is critical to any discussion of this issue. And please, would you and other anti-equality folks stop talking about all these things that you keep finding in your throat. I must confess that even an old, long married,tolerant heterosexual such as myself finds those remarks, well, disquieting. And rather psychologically suspect.
A majority should not be able to deny rights to a minority.
Some things are not subject to majority rule. Equality for all citizens before the law is one of those things.
Notice you don’t bother even trying to give a reason it would be “special” rights when they’re the same rights straight, married couples already have.
I have said my thoughts on the matter. My talking as well as the majority of the citizens of the State of Maine will do our talking at the polls as we have done and will continue to do. You do not have to like it but it’s the American way.
Is it the American way to let the majority decide the rights for a minority? It USED to be, but those days used to be over…
In other words, you don’t *have* a reason, and just like going on about “special” rights because it makes you feel better to pretend that’s what it would be.
At least be honest about it.
My gay friends, family members and neighbors are just as good as me and are just as deserving as me to have these rights that I already enjoy. Disdain should not be legislated. I can’t wait to see this pass in November — we’ll be one step closer to fully realizing and codifying that we are all created equal.
Tabor, Tabor, Tabor. Marriage, Marriage, Marriage. It’s such an insult to repeatedly vote upon the same issues.
Misinformation, misinformation, misinformation. It’s such an insult to have people posting on here and peddling lies. We voted on marriage once. Maine allows for initiatives. Get over it or just skip the question when you’re voting if you’re that annoyed.
I know we’ve voted for it once. But we haven’t seen the end of it. When a state says no, they generally mean it.
The US Supreme Court needs to rule so that marriage equality is reality nationwide. Otherwise we will be having a vote again, regardless of how November’s vote goes.
OK folks, let’s try this again.
Does anyone against gay marriage have a rational legal argument to defend their views?
If indeed a civil union provides the same legal rights as marriage does then the goal of temporal sanction is reached. The act of needing more than that is a self-set standard based upon individuals’ goals. Those who demand respect and social legitimacy will get neither. Social acceptance is not legislated by the government. Rather, social acceptance is earned much as any behavior is.
That said, marriage is for one man and one woman. If the Civil Union nomenclature is not acceptable find another more to your liking.
It’s actually a set standard based on prior rulings by the US Supreme Court. Setting up two separate systems is inherently unequal.
Unless we change the law so it is civil unions for everybody, such a system will fail a constitutional challenge.
I for one am fine with civil unions as long as civil marriage goes away and everyone gets civil union licenses from the state.
Civil unions don’t provide the same legal rights as marriage.
The nomenclature of marriage *is* one of the rights. It is, therefore, impossible to have all of the rights without it. That doesn’t mean you have to respect anyone. But x – y < x.
WELL we all know how STRAIGHT marriage’ is working out!!!
My personal opinion is that everyone is up in arms over an issue, that in hindsight-does not physically or emotionally, impact any part of their daily life. I just don’t understand why everything has to be a fight. Maybe it’s just high time that people start getting over themselves, stop hiding behind forced religion, and speak for yourself….not what some “Book” tells you to think, say, or do. That, quite frankly, is a cowards way of protecting yourself.
If we beat issues to death like this one, for example (which is clearly a civil rights issue)-then all the leaders and founders of the past fought for meant NOTHING! “All men are created equal…” – except in Maine. =S
It affects the lives of those who are not allowed to marry. Also their friends and family, including their children. All would be affected positively by the change. The only people affected negatively (in any true sense; there are of course plenty of lies going around) are those who make a living trying to stop it.
I understand what you are saying, hyhybt. What I cannot grasp is why anyone (that does not support same sex marriage) would even really care. It’s not as though these couples are calling them up; asking to have a marriage ceremony in their living rooms.
If people do not want to accept that same sex couples are just as deserving of the sanctity of marriage; then turn a blind-eye, and decline invites to the wedding.
Pretty much: people need to mind their business (and manners). All of the nay-sayers claim to be “religious folk” (which I call bs on), so if that’s the case they are all breaking the “laws of the Lord” by judging others while lest they be judged. Ridiculous!
Part of it is that many people, deep down, would rather believe lies that support their existing position than accept the truth. So they hear claims that letting gay couples marry would destroy the “institution” entirely, lead to the teaching of gay sex in elementary school, whatever…. eventually general destruction of all of society, and because that supports their dislike, they believe it. And if it were true that gay marriage would destroy society, well, of course that would affect everybody.
The other side of it is the twisted view that not being able to enforce your religious views onto others through law is infringement on your rights… or even that including gays in the same anti-discrimination laws we have now would be. Not giving your beliefs a special privilege that others don’t have is not discrimination; just the opposite. But they see it that way, and if it were true, it would certainly be understandable to fight on that basis.
How many times do you have to vote against something before the point sinks in.
As many times as it takes so that straight citizens are no longer receiving special rights.
So far it’s only been voted on once. And that was only because Mark Mutty and his ilk abused the referendum process to deny Mainers their civil rights.
How many times do we have to successfully prove our points in courts and state legislatures across this nation before it sinks in that our legitimate right to civil marriage should not be put up for a popularity contest?
Does the public get to vote on whether *you* have basic rights? I didn’t think so . . .
All these doomsday scenarios are complete bunk. Has the sky fallen in New Hampshire since legalization? Some like to claim that this will lead to pedophilia — has straight marriage led to pedophilia?
Not in NH, not in NY, not anywhere in the US or abroad.
That’s my point about having something that will stand in court, as these folks obviously don’t. Xenophobia is not a valid reason to discriminate under the government… nor is religion…
Pedophilia is not the same thing as being gay…… anymore than it is the same thing as being straight….try and become educated people….. this is not nuclear physics…..do some research prior to stating your opinion as fact.
You can’t use pedophilia as an argument against gay marriage because it would also be an argument against straight marriage as well. These people have nothing but lies on their side.
That was my point……
I support equal rights! If you don’t support gay marriage, don’t go to the wedding; it’s really that simple.
Martin Luther King went through hell to change America. I’m sure if a blog was possible back then we’d see similar biased comments that we see now. These type of things take time. Keep at it gays/lesbians and eventually your civil rights will become “A Dream come true”. I’m not going to stand in the way to someone’s happiness…are you?
People keep dodging around the question of whether one group gets to make their religious beliefs have the force of law.
The objection to same-sex marriage is based on religion.
YES!
I keep asking for a rational, legal argument on their behalf. I’ve been asking for one on the BDN forums for YEARS and no one can put one forth.
It’s all irrational fear and mythology. Nothing of substance.
As is the objection to a woman’s choice. What they want is to control all non-evangelical Christians.
I LOVE GAY PEOPLE THEY DON’T BREED!!! Our planet is overpopulated as is.
70%, I can live with the smell…
The gay life style is not something to be encouraged, as a lot of research shows it leads to a much lower life expectancy and physiological disorders. Studies show that homosexuals have a life expectancy up to 20 years less than the general population. It’s a unhealthy life style just like drinking and smoking. This is a slippery slope that we as a society do not want to go down. As a society we must decide what marriage means…….not law makers, as they can be influenced by special interest out side of our state.
OK… the “life expectancy” nonsense was the (completely debunked) work of one Paul Cameron, who says parents should set their kids up on sexual play dates because it’s “better too young than homosexual”… He’s discredited and every case he’s been invited into has been tossed out of court.
Heterosexuals practice EVERY single thing homosexuals do… all the time. Yet you don’t wish to stop them from marrying. Hypocrite. Nor do you wish to stop alcoholics and smokers from marrying. Hypocrite.
The slippery slope began with free choice and will always end with free choice. It’s a lie by those terrified of free choice and personal responsibility.
I’ve been with one partner, monogamous, for over 20 years. Most straight marriages don’t last that long. We’re both in fine health and don’t know anyone who has suffered the maladies you associate with being gay. Add to that the CDC’s very statistics demonstrate that the vast majority of gay citizens are healthy and disease free, and you’ve just added yourself to the paranoid fear mongers who are losing this war on gay citizens.
As for out of state… that was YOUR SIDE bringing in the likes of NOM and other out of state organizations and people to fight for your side.
Stop it already. You sound like a fool.
CDC reports say your wrong. Slippery slope ….. next two brother’s marrying just because they can….two sister’s…..man and his horse for tax purposes……Where will it end? Our society is decaying now and it’s time to turn it around. You chose your life style not me ……..Peddle your rant’s somewhere else.
No sweetheart it does not. See, if you were SMART enough to look into it,
and do a little math (I know… math is hard) you’d see the truth.
Here… According to the CDC’s numbers, there are 1.2 million citizens
(about 1/300th of the US population) with HIV/AIDS. Of that number,
approximately 1/2, or 600,000 of them are gay.
Now, according to the 2010 census, 9,000,000 citizens claimed to be gay
(and considering that’s the census figure, it’s way low). So, what that
means is this:
9,000,000 – 600,000 = 9,4000,000 gay citizens WITHOUT aids. See there?
You’re wrong. The vast majority of gay citizens are perfectly healthy.
As for straight folks doing what gay folks do read this, which also
carries statistics from the CDC: http://nymag.com/nightlife/mating/25988/. And keep in mind that sodomy is not as common in gay relationships s you might think, and oral sex is the #1 form of sex in the country. How about that!?
Horses cannot enter into legal contracts you moran… why would you even be numb enough to try and bring that up?
It ends at victimization… we’ve already had that discussion.
And I chose my lifestyle? So tell us sweetcheeks, when did YOU say no to your same-sex attractions?
A horse it’s called sarcasm Moran http://www.cdc.gov/nchhstp/newsroom/docs/FastFacts-MSM-FINAL508COMP.pdf
2010 census ask no questions about sexual orientation
Yes it did, look it up.
http://2010.census.gov/partners/pdf/factSheet_General_LGBT.pdf Assume your talklking about 2010 census. No questions asked about sexual orientation.
From the document you just referenced… The 2010 Census will be the first to report counts of both same-sex partners and same-sex spouses.
Like I said no sexual orientation questions. So all the numbers will be subjective. Only 6 states allow homosexual marriage so some might not report correctly just to help inflate the numbers. Same sex partners could mean anything. Just because two people live together doesn’t mean their homosexual. I have seen studies that show homosexual populations as low 2 million and people on here like to quote 9 million. All depends what study you look at I guess. Every time you quote a study they just want to tear apart the study and then call you names .
Same sex “partners” includes even those states without marriage genius.
The Williams Institute, which worked with the government on the census, found in the 2010 census report that 9 million citizens reported being gay on the census… and considering that’s only the number that were willing to report such to the government, it is very likely to be a l0w-ball number.
Find me a study to refute the Williams Institute and the census… I’m betting 500 to 1 odds you can’t do it.
You’re either not very bright or you’re outright lying… I don’t know which.
http://www.census.gov/newsroom/releases/archives/2010_census/cb11-cn181.html
It most certainly did! I know, because I’m one of the ones that answered those questions. I know because I know how to use Google…
What’s with you not even investigating an issue before opening your mouth? It makes you look dumb.
See the Williams Institute (who did the work on the 2010 census for the government) for full details.
You are Hilarious…..pathetic but Hilarious none the less. Just so you know genius- Maine allows first cousins to marry(research it smart guy-more states allow first cousins to marry than states that allow gay people marry- ewwwww)….THAT’S OK…..but unrelated consenting gay adults wanting to marry is why our society is ‘decaying’……Really???…..perhaps that might help us understand you and your wife’s situation…..you’re cousins…..you’re right where ever will this end??? Pffffffffft.
I love when you attack people shows me you can’t handle the truth. The subject is homosexual marriage remember.
Watching too many Tom Cruise movies with Jack Nicholson are we??? Can’t handle the truth?? Pfffffffft.
It makes me incredibly curious why “straight” people such as yourself spend so much time posting on these articles. It’s like you go above and beyond people who don’t support same-sex marriage, which I find incredibly interesting.
I had a “straight” friend like you, who is, dare I say, not actually straight.
It is you who does the attacking. Stop suppressing things that your parents drilled into you. Stop dressing up hate and intolerance in an attire of ” morals”. It’s extremely hypocritical.
That’s it attack. Always brings them out. I didn’t attack anyone made a statement about CDC reports on Hiv/Aids. It’s a unhealthy sexual activity and CDC reports shows that. Same as smoking and drinking there also unhealthy. Some places in this country homosexual activity is rampant and if you don’t believe that your in denial.
None of what you say is true here.
None of what he says is true anywhere.
I assume you are citing materials put out by the Camerons through the Family Research Council that has never been formally peer reviewed, as good science must be in order to be credible. Most scientists who have gone over their materials after publication have found their data, methodology and conclusions not extremely problematic.
Part of a response by Morten Frisch, MD, PhD, DSc(Med), Senior Epidemiologist with Denmark’s Public Health Service offers some insight into the methodology.
“To further illustrate Cameron and Cameron’s methodological blunder, imagine a country that sets up a new register to record all cases of sexual harassment against women. After 14 years of operation the register is contacted by an advocacy group who gets access to the data to examine how sexual harassment influences women’s life expectancy. Among those women who died during the maximum of 14 years of follow-up, few women will have died after the age of 50, simply because most sexual harassment cases occurred among young women. Using the same logic and methods as Cameron and Cameron, this advocacy group could arrive at the conclusion that sexual harassment reduces women’s ‘life expectancy’ by 30 years or more. Needless to say, this would be as pure nonsense as the conclusion reached by Cameron and Cameron that heterosexuals outlive gays by 22-25 years. In theory, despite their possession of academic degrees, the authors may have been unaware of the flawed methodology they used and, therefore, they may have been in good faith when writing their report. If so, they should promptly retract it to avoid further stigmatization of homosexual persons. However, expectations that this will happen are slim. Results simply fit too well with the views they have previously expressed.”
Thanks Pokeyboy… You are familiar with this, my all-time favorite Cameron quote?
“Marital sex tends toward the boring end. Generally, it doesn’t deliver
the kind of sheer sexual pleasure that homosexual sex does. If you
isolate sexuality as something solely for one’s own personal amusement,
if all you want is the most satisfying orgasm you can get, then
homosexuality seems too powerful to resist.”
What I wanna know is… HOW does Cameron know this?
Certainly an odd thing for a totally straight guy to say.
Sex isn’t supposed to pleasurable. It’s for procreational purposes only. Pleasurable sex should be illegal, whether the parties are married or not.
That position is going to be a hard sell, to say the least.
Never heard of him.
The Family Research Council is part of a growing list of anti-gay groups masking themselves under the guise of conservatism or Christianity. They are pushing are wholesale defamation attacks on gays and lesbians, Some of their materials are nearly as crude as, say, the Klan’s racism. But a lot of it’s a little more sophisticated and they try to make it more scientific even though what they’re pushing are unscientific falsehoods.
My first involvement with politics was as a volunteer in Barry Goldwater’s Presidential campaign in ’64. He was military and a Republican U.S.Senator…a TRUE conservative who didn’t believe the government should have any right to poke into peoples personal lives…bedrooms. One of my favorite quotes of his (this is over 30 years ago) is “I don’t care if a soldier is straight, as long as he can shoot straight.”
Site your references. What research and by whom? What are the statistics? What methods were used to gather this ‘evidence?’ Were the studies longitudinal? If so- for how long? What was the population sample utilized? Prove your statements as factual rather than being purely of your opinion and conjecture…and by factual I mean REAL RESEARCH by REAL SCIENTISTS who represent reputable sources.
CDC
Poverty is correlated with the same, but people don’t have a choice, right? Shall we deny the poor the same rights because a poor lifestyle is “unhealthy”. Gay is not a choice: why punish people for who they are?
Who cares anyway?
Right. Very interesting. You are clearly a doctor…………….
Physiological disorders because we’re shunned and denied rights, ostracized from our families, we’re harassed and bullied. Duh.
And that equates with smoking and drinking? Brilliant. You are so brilliant.
You are trying to justify your behavior. Your choice just like smoking and drinking it’s a behavioral issue. That’s my opinion and all I do is get called names. CDC facts are real numbers…… people get Hiv/Aids from homosexual activity and they die from it.
Yes! Broke the 200 post. BDN knows how to increase their clicks
You shoulda been here back in the “old days” before Disqus! Such topics as this could hit 2,000 posts in a day.
Lies.
Still looking for that one rational legal argument against gay marriage. Not religion. Not personal morals (which vary from person to person).
So come on folks… if you’re SO against this, surely there is a rational argument that will stand in court to demonstrate how correct you are.
Show it to us! Please!!
That’s great. But I’m sure you’re in a small minority.
Look at the big names who oppose us who have been married several times, had affairs, and even had European vacations with rent boys.
A biological purpose for sex is procreation. But we all know that there are more reasons to have sex than to procreate.
I hope you aren’t suggesting that the only time anyone should have sex is to procreate. And I REALLY hope you’re not saying that the only purpose for marriage is for purposes of procreation.
How seldom we hear the word “love” from those who oppose us….
Rick Santorum, the candidate who is still in the race that is most opposed to homosexuals, is also opposed to birth control and sex out of wedlock… He really wants to use the power of government to enforce his religious views on all Americans.
Big Government is bad when it’s to help the poor, need, and minorities. :o(
Big Government GOOD when it’s to help enforce moral views! YAY! :o)
Don’t forget corporate bailouts.
The especially odd thing, to me, is the combination you see. It makes sense that a Catholic would make arguments about the only legitimate sex being “open to procreation.” That is, after all, official Catholic teaching. But so often it’s paired with claims, essentially, that the only way anyone contributes to humanity is by directly increasing the population… which not only is nonsense, but which Catholics, particularly, wouldn’t put up with a moment in any other context. Certainly their hierarchy wouldn’t :)
I wonder how many would vote for a gay marriage bill if, tied to it, was a bill abolishing any and all affirmative action policies of the states.
I would. I don’t agree with affirmative action, but I believe gay marriage is required under our Constitution’s 14th Amendment.
this is strange to me. i have had domestic partner for 12 years. we are hetero. have kids. have no desire to mary. a lot of people now dont get married. why not let those who choose to union in government do so. i have already unioned in gods eyes. i sleep with my partner.
That’s great! I know there are many gays who won’t marry even after it’s legal.
But isn’t it nice to have a choice? Currently I have none, I cannot wed my partner.
Hmm. Maybe there will be a “no domestic partner” question on next year’s referendum. If the people of this state said you could no longer live together, what then?
It’s funny that, statistically speaking, most Republicans, Conservatives, Tea Party-ers and the like are the ones who oppose gay marriage. Yet it’s this same group who wants less government controlling every little aspect of their lives. Either the GOP is in the closet, or the GAYs are in the House.
Why can’t we all just admit we’re gay and wealthy?
Ya know, it might be that “wealthy” part that has ’em all in a ruckus…
I have long said that the Republicans should embrace gay rights and eliminate this wedge issue that the Democrats enjoy. I know many conservative gays who can’t vote for Republicans while they explicitly stand against our equal treatment under the law.
Thank you for sharing that. I hate to speak in generalities, so I appreciate your insight into a group of individuals not only persecuted for who they are naturally but who are also colliding with in addition to being isolated by their political ideology.
What’s a tree to do when the forest can’t even hear it falling?
It will get better. I have faith, it will get better.
Don’t forget they oppose women’s autonomy as well. Plus they really don’t like non-Christians. I could go on.
It’s a birth defect. They are protected from discrimimation by the Americans with disabilities act. It’s a mental problem.
No it’s not a mental problem- where do you get you information muffin? Your laughable at best. Sigh.
Yes, I agree those folks who oppose our equal rights to marriage have a mental problem.
Five votes in my household says marriage is between a man and a woman!!!!
Great….well we know where we can 5 narrow minded nincompoops when we need them. I have 5 people in my house that say you and your family members can NEVER get divorced….like that’s anymore of my business as it is your business about other people wanting to get married……don’t believe in gay marriage- don’t have one, don’t believe in abortion – don’t have one, don’t believe in drinking- don’t drink, don’t believe in god- don’t believe…that doesn’t give you or anyone else the ‘right’ to take those choices away from someone else. Try spending more time worrying about your own business rather than other peoples business. Pfffffft.
How would you feel I had more than one wife…?
Speaking as a narrow minded nincompoop I would not like it. AND I would like it even less if you were telling me I have to like it and agree with it even if I don’t……like the gay and lesbian proponents.
No, I dont support the gay marriage thing, but I just find it to be odd that the same gay marriage proponents would object if I had more than one wife, and yes my wife would put two in the back of my head if I tried….
Well your wife certainly sounds like an enlightened individual…..or cousin.
Better than your mother
Why should I feel anything? As long as I don’t have to do it- it’s none of my freaking business….have 6 wives for all I care or don’t have any. Of course you may want to move to Utah while you’re at it…..you know the state where they actually have people with more than one wife. I don’t see you having a crap fest over what Utah does……or Nevada where prostitution is legal or all the other states that allow first cousins to marry….
Totally missed the point….
Lucky!
Irrelevant comparison…no one is advocating multiple spouses.
When you redefine marriage, it totally is relevant
Too late… the definition has ALREADY changed bub.
Not here in Maine
Go for it toots! You have some laws to change… but otherwise, it affects me naught.
Then those five people should practice that and leave ME and my life alone. It really is that simple.
Five people in your household are going to lose.
Or do you have a valid argument to defend government discrimination?
How many times do the citizens of Maine have to vote this down?
How many times are people going to post this exact same comment afresh, rather than bothering to read and answer the replies already given?
I’ve got better things to do than read through 375 posts, just leaving my two cents.
That’s no excuse when your post is essentially a question. All you do by reposting it is make conversation more difficult.
It is a good question, and a tough one to answer with honestly .
Honesty has nothing to do with it. Like any contentious issue, it can keep going on the ballot until it’s either decided in a manner that the ballot cannot override, or else opinion is far enough one side or the other that it would obviously be pointless to try again.
Which, of course, anybody asking the question already knows.
Ideally, this shouldn’t be subject to voting. Equal protection never should be. But until a consensus agrees that that’s what’s at stake, on the ballot it goes…
I will fight for what’s right even when I might not win. Looking forward to voting for marriage equality in November!
The issue of marriage has been on the ballot once. And even then, that was to reject a law.
How many times does any one issue have to be on the ballot? How many times has that taxpayer revolt thing been on the ballot?
The law allows anyone to put a measure on the ballot as long as the requisite number of voters want it. This measure was signed by PLENTY more than enough voters.
Are you then saying that the will of the people should be denied?
Millions if that’s what it takes.
Charlie Webster says we should be “focusing on the economy” rather than revisiting this issue. Well, when the Dems were in charge, the single best thing they did to boost the economy was pass a bill legalizing gay marriage, which, had it not been repealed, would have resulted in millions of dollars of new business for our state’s hospitality industry. Anyone who is pro-business and believes in keeping government from meddling with our personal lives should whole-heartedly support making same sex marriage legal in Maine.
I personally don’t agree with same sex relationships. However, I figure who you want to just in bed with is your own business. Whether a law gets passed to allow same sex marriage or not is not going to stop homosexual relationships. Homosexuality has probably been around as long as humans have. I’m just getting tired of this being hashed over again and again. Can we please just vote on it, and that be done with it?
We’ll ‘be done with it’ when everyone has been afforded the exact same civil rights in this state. You can’t be anymore tied of ‘rehashing’ this than the rest of us who want this to pass once and for all. The world will not come to an end if gay people are afforded the civil right of getting married….no more than the world ends when straight people get divorced once or twice or three times or more……
Easy there…I didn’t draw any blood with what I said. Everyone has the right to their personal opinion. I also said that it was up to each person to make their own mind up. and we need to either pass this or not, and be doen with it. That’s all.
Sorry not good enough this is about civil rights not something so simple as merely opinions…..think African Americans should have been… meh…well the white folks voted on it and we still don’t have civil rights- oh well, or women should have been …meh….well we tried to get the right to vote or get paid the same wage as our male counter parts…oh well guess that’s just how it is and call it good or that Native Americans should have settled for less. I don’t think so.
Let’s clearly define the term second-class citizen shall we? This is a term used to describe a person who is ‘systematically discriminated against within a state or other political jurisdiction, despite their nominal status as a citizen or legal resident there. Second-class citizens have limited legal rights, civil rights and economic opportunities. Instead of being protected by the law, the law disregards a second-class citizen, or it may actually be used to harass them. Second-class citizenry is generally regarded as a violation of human rights. Typical impediments facing second-class citizens include, but are not limited to, disenfranchisement (a lack or loss of voting rights), limitations on civil or military service (not including conscription in every case), as well as restrictions on language, religion, education, freedom of movement and association, weapons ownership, marriage, housing and property ownership ANY of these things sound familiar??? Either we as American’s are ALL equal or we’re not -and if we’re NOT then we have a bigger problem in this country that we will have to all contend with.
Misleading headline. It isn’t just gay Mainers advocating gay marriage rights.
What about polandry? Two men and one woman. That is the next thing. How about three men and two women? Where does it stop? One man and one woman makes a marriage. Period. Stop there or who knows where this will all go. Civil unions? Ok. Live and let live, what happens behind closed doors and all that. Stop trying to drive this issue down our throats. Marriage is between one man and one woman.
They want “gay marriage” but think having more than one wife is wrong,,, double standard..?
I am not pushing polygamy, but it seems a bit contrary to mandate one and not the other. If these people are going to rewrite the defination of marriage, then they better be ready of things that “they” would object to.
Polygamy doesn’t affect my life, I have no reason to fight for or against it.
The issue at hand is same sex marriage though, you are simply trying to distract the discussion because you have no other argument.
When you redefine marriage, polygamy becomes a part of this discussion
No it doesn’t. The issue we are discussing is whether discrimination against same sex couples is warranted. It is not, and in fact it goes against our Constitution’s 14th Amendment equal protection clause, just as interracial marriage restrictions did.
Aaaah, no,,, by changing the definition of marriage , all aspects of how its redefined would very much include multiple partners…!
And people marrying dogs! And cats marrying chairs! It’ll never end!!!
exactly
Ironic then, that the Mormons are primary backers of the NOM, the shady organization that funneled millions into Maine to deny us equal rights to civil marriage.
And again– poligamy has not followed in any state or nation which allows same sex marriage. Your tactic is distraction because you cannot argue the validity of our right to civil marriage.
Not so. This doesn’t work like a constitutional convention, where anything goes. This is a single question: whether your choice of marriage partner should be limited by sex. How many you may be married to at once is a totally different question, a fact which is altered not in the slightest by your being able to describe them both as “changing the definition.”
Answer this, please, straight out, no waffling or weaseling or deflecting. How is your claim LOGICALLY different than the following: A proposal is put forth to raise the speed limit by five miles per hour. You say that would mean letting people drive on both sides of the road, because changing the traffic laws means all aspects of them?
“May I choose a marriage partner of the same sex as myself” and “how many marriage partners may I have at the same time” are totally different questions, and must be treated as such. The same as “how fast may I drive” and “on which side of the road” are different questions. In both cases, changing the answer to the first question has no necessary bearing on the second.
Like a gopher at an airport, this one just was totally over your head.
Most gay marriage proponents want gay marriage, but get say polygamy plays no role in redefining marriage…
I understand just fine, thank you. You insist that all possible changes to existing rules be treated as equivalent. That remains pure and unadulterated nonsense no matter how often you repeat it, exactly as in my example.
You didn’t even bother trying to show *why* they are all supposedly the same. You just declare them to be, with no basis beyond that they could both be described as “redefining”.
We are not holding a constitutional convention here.
Then we agree that there is no need to change anything…
Not so.
All changes are not equivalent, and making one change does not necessitate opening up all possibilities.
The removal of the gender restriction would be a simple and easy change for the better, harming nobody.
The removal of the restriction to one marriage at a time is a separate matter for another discussion, totally irrelevant to the question of gender, just as the question of how fast you are allowed to drive is separate from that of which side(s) of the road you may use.
I guess you dont see the hypocrisy, but that as expected
I see how someone more determined to oppose gay marriage at all costs than to preserve honesty could easily pretend this is hypocritical, yes.
Sorry for asking you the same thing over; I didn’t realize it was you.
On the other hand, you didn’t bother to address the matter in your previous responses. Please do this time.
You’re in the wrong state Bubba….try UTAH….
Coming soon all star….to a Maine near you.
Paranoid much…..??????
I calls em like I sees em.
I would go with myopic vision…..
Nowhere has polygamy come to be legal after gay marriage is recognized. If you cannot argue against marriage equality without bringing up polygamy, you don’t have a real argument against marriage equality.
Oh, it’s my friend Harry again. Hello, Harry. How are you? Still here I see. How wonderful. Well, Harry, you see, marriage happens to be–in our society–a LEGAL term, as it bestows rights that civil unions don’t, which is a legal and civil inequality. I’m sorry you don’t like that, but it’s just the way it is. And when it’s a LEGAL issue, well Harry, you should have no say over that. I would like to have a say over not permitting you to marry anyone, but, see, I can’t do that, because that’s your LEGAL right.
Gay marrage? What is “gay” about two people of the same sex getting married? How silly…..
I think it will pass this time. I for one am sick of these evangelical Christians trying to control everyone’s lives.
So everyone who believes that marriage is between one man and one woman is an evangelical Christian trying to control everyone’s lives? Yikes! Excuse me but does that hat you are wearing have a propeller?
No one is trying to deny marriage for one man and one woman. What rational legal argument is there to deny it from same sex couples, though? What harm is done to you to let us enjoy the same protections for our families?
So sad to see the homophobic comments here. The Maine I grew up in was one of live & let live…
Folks might like to google “Is homophobia associated with homosexual arousal?”
(Hint – It is. In fact, the more homophobic men tended to be the most aroused by homosexual imagery)
Hint – Google one man and one woman and it will come up marriage. Shocking.
I prefer to consult the US Constitution when it comes to questions about my civil rights, not Google.
Haha, Harry are you serious? You sold me on that one…
Some people are hopeless, I suppose.
The first cite to come up was the word Bible. And though I won my share of Bible drills in Sunday school, There is a prohibition against the government establishing – elevating above all other – any particular religion.
In terms of governance, I’ll stick to the Constitution.
they are like kids they cant except the word no must be democrats
Oh and quick question for you…let’s see there was Adam and Eve (the only two people on earth) and then they had….who was it?? Cain and Abel and Seth etc….so who had to have incestuous relationships with who in order to procreate the earth….. hmmmmmm… seems like it would be brothers and sisters wouldn’t it?? Well what a lovely concept isn’t it? Oh and least we forget that Adam lived to be 800 years old because THAT’s plausible.
If you don’t like gay marriage, don’t get one.
I have seen many comments here that site children as the main reason to deny marriage to gay couples. I agree that children may be effected by either unmarried or married parents, but the main reason folks get married is because they want to be together in a committed relationship that is legally recognized. Children may certainly benefit from marriage but marriage should not be granted or denied based on any consideration of having children. If children were the main reason, then we should deny marriage to any couple who do not intend to have children, gay or not. That certainly doesn’t make any sense.
For that matter, since marriage is a civil contract that in most states becomes legal once a couple receives the marriage certificate from the court house, religion should also not be a requirement for marriage. Again, strong religious convictions may certainly help marriages succeed, but no where is there a requirement that someone be religious to get married.
It seems to me that all the arguments used against gay marriages are flawed because they are based upon irrelevant requirements. The only requirement that I believe should exist is that two people want to be together in a relationship that is legally recognized so that they can enjoy the companionship that marriages can provide.
FYI… the True purpose for marriage is Pro-Creation, so for your type of Species to do that, you need a surrogate,,, carrier of the “egg/sperm” which in essence makes you a Hypocrite of your whole Existance, considering the fact that your “Species” are not able to do in the….
Natural Way…. which sexual relations are intended!
True or False oh Amazed One?!?!
Sorry toots… there is NO requirement for procreation in marriage… anywhere in the nation.
If you wish to pursue that, you’ll have to annul millions of childless marriages. Are you OK with that?
All their arguments against us can be applied to subsets of straight people but then, of course, they AREN’T applied to those subsets. That just shows that it’s outright discrimination against gays but few will actually put it that way. “Gays just should not marry, period!” That, of course, is no argument (though one I’ve heard many times while canvassing).
I look forward to voting in favor of gay marriage!
Luvers of gubmint UNITE!
Personally, I like Doublemint better.
Our day will come. And we’ll have everything. We’ll share the joy Falling in love can bring. No one can tell me That I’m too young to know I love you so And you love me. Our day will come. If we just wait awhile. No tears for us. Think love and wear a smile. Our dreams are meant to be because we’ll always stay in love this way. Our day will come.
your day Will come,, raining Fire and Brimstone. Peace out,,,, “Dude”?
Ah, mythology.
My favorite part is when Jehovah murdered 42 children in 2 Kings… that’s just a riot!
Really? You talked to God about this? This isn’t the message I’ve heard at my church. Or is this a personal threat?
Odd….
No, I didn’t talk to god about your issue, at least your god that is,,,, the ruler of this world,,,the enemy of the truth….and I do not mean Obama!
Your god has literally ripped the pages right out of the bible that deal with your warped sense of reality and existance, so you can justify the distorted, disgusting , disturbed and diseased sad lifestyle.
Explaine to me in a literal and logical definition how it is “Normal Behavior” to insert a specific part of the male anatomy into another male human beings orofice that is Solely intended to excrete bodily waste.? MMMM,, sounds good to ya I bet…. keep it in your sock!
The Only excuse which you can fabricate is for a selfish , perverted, reprehensible behavior that is rarely found in the untamed animal kingdom.
All that you HOMOsexual Species want is to be included in the Federally Protected Endangered Species Act,,, Kinda like the Humpback Whale, Maine Moose, Seagulls and the lowly Snail Darter Fish !
Well, you’ve probably had a difficult time “digesting” this bit of info,,, so chew on it for awhile and if you get confused,,, more than you already are, just call 1-888 I Dont Care !
‘Cause really,,,,,,,,,,,,,I don’t , because I’ve read the last chapter and guess what…………
I WIN !!!!!!!!!!!! Peace Out *DUDEette* ;<]
Just say No…and No Again…and No Again…and No Again…and No Again…and No Again…and No Again…and No Again.
I believe I’ve entered the correct amount of times that we’ve been “forced” to waste out precious time and $ to vote on this PC issue.
Oh Yeah, one more point, Please stop forcing Your homoSexuality on Me !
I Demand that your selfish intolerance of my Normal Heterosexual practices cease and desist.
Keep the Family as it is intended to be, man & woman!
If everyone was like you, man with man or woman with woman, then we as a People would be non-existant.
Actually, in “Some” cases, like yours… that would really resolve Your Issues now wouldn’t It ?!?!
Peace & Love… in a Totally “Straight” way of course !! Forever yours…357 ;<)
You’re gonna be voting a lot then.
You won by a tiny majority… and that won’t stay that way for long.
You have no rational legal argument as to why the government should continue to discriminate… as such, you will lose.
“Tedlick”, ur sick. Legality is not the issue here…
Normality is the issue,,,, only rabbits act “Homo-ish”
are You a Rabbit TedyLicky?
Who let you out of your cage?
Wrong. Legality is the ONLY issue here. If you have nothing that will stand in defense of your views when this gets to court, you’ll end up just like folks in the Prop 8 case… who all made fools of themselves.
Your idea of “normal” is yours… not mine. I find it is not normal to have or teach kids to have imaginary friends to get you through life, but many people do. Thus is the nature of reality.
Got two questions above for you little man… let’s see if you have the IQ to even try to answer either one.
Is that the only reply? “ur sick”?
Sounds pretty much like what they had in the Prop 8 trial. No actual facts, just going on and on about how teh gay is sick.
You need to be prosecuted for voter fraud then, because same sex marriage has only been on the ballot once so far.
So you know, no one is forcing you to get gay married once we have same-sex marriage in Maine.
This is simply an issue of eliminating unwarranted discrimination by our government on a set of citizens who simply want to enjoy the same protections of civil marriage we extend to other Maine families.
You are a deceived embellsher of your “Fantasy” lifestyle.
The Voters have been subjected to this idiotic scam for 15+/- years.
All it is for is so the lousy Dems can secure their legacy in their own distorted little mind and feel as though that they’ve accomplished something,,,, which IF this goes thru, they will have.
It’ll be ” The End of the World As We Know It… And it Won’t Feel Fine”
May you have a most enjoyable life, just don’t expect me to $upport “IT”. ;</
The “voters” don’t settle issues of civil rights. Never have, never will.
Now… let me ask you two questions.
1. Do you have a rational legal argument for your views on gay marriage?
2. How does gay marriage harm you or America?
Simple questions…
Legality is not the issue…
Normality,,,, is the promotion of humanity, as we are the results of Heterosexual relations.
HOMOSEXUALITY and all “IT” represents destroys…
Life on Earth.
I bet your parents told you that they found you under a cabbage leaf…Right, ted Lick ?
If you think legality is not the issue, then you will lose.
Nobody’s stopping the “promotion of humanity”… besides, procreation is not a requirement for marriage, and many homosexuals do it just fine thanks.
Life on earth is going nowhere. Why are you so afraid people will stop making babies of gays are allowed to wed? That’s a very silly fear.
Actually, my mother always told me a buzzard crapped on a stump and the sun hatched me out. But you’re close.
Ok, you win.
You should do stand up comedy, you are funny !
Have a nice day.
Peace out ! ;<)
I know plenty of Repubs who support it. Why, even Dick Cheney supports it.
*I* don’t ask you to $upport it. I just ask that you leave me and my life alone.
Children will not be harmed by gay marriage. Let’s examine research and prove what anti-gays are saying wrong. Also note, that “children” are completely irrelevant to gay marriage, because that issue is about gay adoption, which is not related.
http://www.livescience.com/6073-children-raised-lesbians-fine-studies-show.html
“In general, kids in both heterosexual and lesbian households had similar levels of academic achievement, number of friends and overall well-being.”
http://www.magneticfire.com/2010/02/19/1119/
“Goldberg’s new book is the first full-length analysis of the research on gay parenting, summarizing research data on the subject from the 1970s to the present day. The research is consistent in suggesting that the outcomes and well-being of children raised by gay and lesbian parents are no different than those of children raised by heterosexual parents.”
http://www.webmd.com/mental-health/news/20051012/study-same-sex-parents-raise-well-adjusted-kids
“Studies from 1981 to 1994, including 260 children reared by either heterosexual mothers or same-sex mothers after divorce, found no differences in intelligence, type or prevalence of psychiatric disorders, self-esteem, well-being, peer relationships, couple relationships, or parental stress.”
http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2010/08/100831091240.htm
“In a study published this month in the journal Demography, Rosenfeld concludes that children being raised by same-sex couples have nearly the same educational achievement as children raised by married heterosexual couples.”
http://www.apa.org/pi/lgbt/resources/parenting.aspx
“As this summary will show, the results of existing research comparing lesbian and gay parents to heterosexual parents and children of lesbian and gay parents to children of heterosexual parents are quite clear: Common stereotypes are not supported by the data.”
Here is why the slippery slope argument fails.
Let us take the 4 common arguments: beastiality, pedophilia, incest, and polygamy. First off, all 4 of these are fetishes, and irrelevant to homosexuality, which is a sexual orientation. Let me distinguish this for you using incest as an example. If a guy into incest is straight, he’ll choose his sister, and if he’s gay, he’ll choose his brother. See the distinguishment? Now pedophilia and beastiality will never be legal, because both are non-consenting and harmful, whereas homosexuality is 2 loving consenting adults that is not wrong or harmful. Incest, also has been shown to lead to genetic defects, so that is also out of the question. Incest also is a fetish, not a sexual orientation. I have never seen a person exclusively attracted to their brothers/sisters etc. Polygamy also is a choice. No one can choose who they would or will be attracted to, but they CAN choose to be in more than one relationship with more than one person at the same time. Polygamy can be damaging, as it can cause jealousies and resentments among the participants and any children produced. Those 4 fetishes can be seen to be harmful and wrong, whereas gay marriage is neither harmful nor wrong.
If you want to press for polygamy, or incest, those are completely separate issues irrelevant to gay marriage. Go advocate for them if that’s your concern, prove they are not wrong and prove they are not harmful. We have already proven that homosexuality/gay marriage is not wrong/harmful. But those two things are irrelevant to gay marriage. And gay marriage does not lead to polygamy nor any other type of fetish.
Gay marriage has been legal in MA for 8 years now, and i don’t see anyone pushing for polygamy there. The slippery slope is a myth meant as a scare tactic that’s quickly becoming obsolete.
We need to get the word out to religious communities that anti-gay people are twisting God’s words to condone their hate.
Homosexuality is not a sin. The Bible is constantly being taken out of context to support anti-gay views. Scholars who have studied the Bible in context of the times and in relation to other passages have shown those passages (Leviticus, Corinthians, Romans, etc) have nothing to do with homosexuality. These passages often cherry-picked while ignoring the rest of the Bible. The sins theses passages are referring to are idolatry, Greek temple sex worship, prostitution, pederasty with teen boys, and rape, not homosexuality or two loving consenting adults.
http://www.soulfoodministry.org/docs/English/NotASin.htm
http://www.jesus21.com/content/sex/bible_homosexuality_print.html
http://www.christchapel.com/reclaiming.html
http://www.stjohnsmcc.org/new/BibleAbuse/BiblicalReferences.php
http://www.gaychristian101.com/
http://www.mccchurch.org/AM/Template.cfm?Section=Resources&Template=/CM/HTMLDisplay.cfm&ContentID=2121
http://www.wouldjesusdiscriminate.org/biblical_evidence.html
http://www.soulforce.org/article/homosexuality-bible-gay-christian
http://www.goodhopemcc.org/spirituality/sexuality-and-bible/homosexuality-not-a-sin-not-a-sickness.html
This is the perfect example of how anti-gay people change the bible’s words for their anti-gay agenda.
Corinthians 6:9-11
Let us examine that very closely.
Do you not know that the unrighteous will not inherit the kingdom of God? Do not be deceived; neither the immoral, nor idolaters, nor adulterers, nor effeminate [malakoi], nor homosexual offenders [arsenokoites], nor thieves, nor the greedy, nor drunkards, nor revilers, nor robbers will inherit the kingdom of God.
First of all, before we address this line, let us consider one thing. Supposedly taken from a 2000+ year old book, understand that the word “homosexual” was not coined until 1869 by Austrian-born novelist Karl-Maria Kertbeny. So how it happens to be included in a true reading of the particular biblical passage should make you ponder how accurate the interpretation actually is. So man changing the words of the Bible to conveniently spread hate?
Absolutely.
For those of you claiming homosexuality is a “lifestyle”, that is a false and ignorant statement. Homosexuality is not a choice. Just like you don’t choose the color of your skin, you cannot choose whom you are sexually attracted to. Virtually all major psychological and medical experts agree that sexual orientation is NOT a choice. Most gay people will tell you its not a choice. Common sense will tell you its not a choice. While science is relatively new to studying homosexuality, studies tend to indicate that its biological.
http://www-news.uchicago.edu/releases/03/differential-brain-activation.pdf
http://www.newscientist.com/channel/sex/dn14146-gay-brains-structured-like-those-of-the-opposite-sex.html
Gay, Straight Men’s Brain Responses Differ
http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,155990,00.html
http://www.livescience.com/health/060224_gay_genes.html
http://www.springerlink.com/content/w27453600k586276/
http://blogs.discovermagazine.com/80beats/2008/06/16/172/
There is overwhelming scientific evidence that homosexuality is not a choice. Sexual orientation is generally a biological trait that is determined pre-natally, although there is no one certain thing that explains all of the cases. “Nurture” may have some effect, but for the most part it is biological.
And it should also be noted that:
“It is worth noting that many medical and scientific organizations do believe it is impossible to change a person’s sexual orientation and this is displayed in a statement by American Academy of Pediatrics, American Counseling Association, American Association of School Administrators, American Federation of Teachers, American Psychiatric Association, American Psychological Association, American School Health Association, Interfaith Alliance Foundation, National Association of School Psychologists, National Association of Social Workers, and National Education Association.”
Be careful… facts tend to rile up the more ignorant of the natives.
This just in! (Well, from last month..) “Gay marriage law appears to improve the health of gay men” http://www.latimes.com/health/boostershots/la-heb-same-sex-marriage-20111221,0,5555718.story
Also, it appears that the social attitudes toward marriage have changed a lot in the last 50 years. And I suspect that it probably changed a lot during the 50 years before that.
Take a look at this article for more information on marriage in the US: ”
Marriage: Saying ‘I don’t'” http://www.latimes.com/news/opinion/la-oe-coontz-marriage-20120119,0,2144409.story Snippet: “50 years ago what had everyone worried was the rapid rise in the proportion of married-couple households, as young people rushed to the altar.”
No, I didn’t talk to god about your issue, at least your god that is,,,, the ruler of this world,,,the enemy of the truth….and I do not mean Obama!
Your god has literally ripped the pages right out of the bible that deal with your warped sense of reality and existance, so you can justify the distorted, disgusting , disturbed and diseased sad lifestyle.
Explaine to me in a literal and logical definition how it is “Normal Behavior” to insert a specific part of the male anatomy into another male human beings orofice that is Solely intended to excrete bodily waste.? MMMM,, sounds good to ya I bet…. keep it in your sock!
The Only excuse which you can fabricate is for a selfish , perverted, reprehensible behavior that is rarely found in the untamed animal kingdom.
All that you HOMOsexual Species want is to be included in the Federally Protected Endangered Species Act,,, Kinda like the Humpback Whale, Maine Moose, Seagulls and the lowly Snail Darter Fish !
Well, you’ve probably had a difficult time “digesting” this bit of info,,, so chew on it for awhile and if you get confused,,, more than you already are, just call 1-888 I Dont Care !
‘Cause really,,,,,,,,,,,,,I don’t , because I’ve read the last chapter and guess what…………
I WIN !!!!!!!!!!!!
Peace Out *DUDEette* ;<]
HOMOSEXUALS are Not a Minority !
They made a choice, just because it’s the wrong one I don’t want to have to be bribed to support their sickness!
$$$$ = ????
Vacationland… HA!!!
Follow the $$$ !!!
Economic effect =
A UCLA research study from February 2009 estimated that extending marriage to same-sex couples in Maine would have a positive impact on the state’s economy and budget.
The study found that same-sex weddings and associated tourism would generate $60 million in additional spending in Maine over three years, creating 1,000 new jobs.
The state would see an increase of $3.6 million in revenues over the next three years, resulting from increased sales tax revenues of approximately $3.1 million and new marriage license fees of $500,000.
In calculating the net benefit to the state, the study approximated that half of Maine’s 4,644 same-sex couples, or 2,316 couples, would marry in the first three years that marriage is available to them.
The study also estimated that approximately 15,657 same-sex couples from other states would come to Maine to marry.
The “Obamanomics” of the future of Maine.
VaGAYtionland… ;>(
“It’ the end of the world as we know it !”
Peace out…. “Dudes”? 357magman